Skip to main content

Full text of "Colin Brown (ed.), Dictionary Of New Testament Theology (4 vol.)"

See other formats

ne New International 

Dictionary of 
New lestament |: 
Theology Vol.3 i: 

THEOLOGY is a unique source of 
information, invaluable to ministers, teachers, 
and anyone interested in the study as well as 
the teaching of the Bible. 

Some of its main features are: 

@ Concise discussion of the major theological 
terms of the Bible 

® Arranged in English alphabetical order; 
does not demand prior knowledge of Greek 
or Hebrew 

@ Discusses the use of each key word in 
classical and secular Greek, the Old 
Testament and Rabbinic writings, the New 
Testament usage and reference 

@ English edition based on Theologisches 
Begriffslexikon zum Neuen Testament, 
extensively revised and enlarged 

®@ Glossary of Technical Terms giving concise 
definitions of specialist expressions and 
usage in Vol. | 

® Index of Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and 
theological subjects (Vol. 1 and 2 
separately indexed, Combined Index to all 
three Vols. in Vol. 3) 

@ Full and up-to-date bibliographies 

@ International team of contributors 

The New 
of New Testament 

_ Theology 

The New 

Dictionary of 

Companion Volume 


Volume 3: Pri-Z 

New lIestament 

Theolo gy 

Colin Brown 

Translated, with additions and revisions, from the German 


Edited by Lothar Coenen, Erich Beyreuther and Hans Bietenhard 



Oniginally published in German under .the title, 

© 1971 by Theologischer Verlag Rolf Brockhaus, Wuppertal. English Language edition 
copyright © 1978, The Zondervan Corporation, Grand Rapids, Michigan, U.S.A., and The 
Paternoster Press, Ltd. Exeter, Devon, U.K. 

Sixth printing 1981 

All rights in this work are reserved by the publishers, and no part 
may be reproduced without written permission, except for brief 
quotations in reviews. 

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data 
Main entry under title: 

The new international dictionary of New Testament 

‘Translated, with additions and revisions, from the 
German Theologisches Begriffslexikon zum Neuen Testament, 
edited by Lothar Coenen, Erich Beyreuther, and Hans 

‘Companion volume: The new international dictionary 
of the Christian Church.” 

Includes bibliographical references and indexes. 

1. Bible. N.T.—Theology— Dictionaries. 2 Bible. 
N.T.— Dictionaries. I. Brown, Colin. 

BS2397.N48 230’.03 75-38895 
ISBN 0-310-21910-8 

Printed in the United States of America 














knowledge of God and of ourselves (Institutes of the Christian Religion, |, 

1, 1). But, as Calvin’s subsequent reflections make clear, neither part of this 
knowledge exists in a vacuum. The two are closely intertwined, and the Word of 
God which makes this knowledge possible touches every aspect of life. It was this 
awareness of the range and relevance of biblical thinking which prompted the editors 
and publishers of the German original of this dictionary to conceive the project of 
compiling a lexicon of New Testament terms seen against the background of the Old 
Testament and the ancient world. Their aim was to produce a reference work which 
would be compact and yet scholarly, a book which would be of service to preachers, 
teachers, pastors, Christian workers, students and lay people who wished to study 
biblical thinking in depth. 

The publication of this third and final volume of the English edition sees the 
culmination of nearly a quarter of a century of work. In the course of time the dic- 
tionary has grown considerably. The original German articles have all been revised 
and enlarged to take into account more recent literature and scholarly research of in- 
terest to English-speaking readers. The present volume contains 104 main articles, of 
which 32 are completely new. In all 237 key Greek terms are treated here; of these 
87 appear for the first time. A special feature of this English edition are the survey ar- 
ticles which discuss topics arising out of New Testament thought. This third volume 
contains 10 such articles ranging from The Resurrection in Contemporary Theology 
to Jesus and Revolution, and from The Genealogies of Jesus Christ to Language and 
Meaning in Religion. Prepositions and Theology in the Greek New Testament are 
given separate treatment in an extensive appendix. 

As in the previous volumes, the main entries are arranged under the alphabetical 
order of the English terms which serve as a focus for the articles on key Greek 
words. These are further sub-divided as follows: 

CL Discussion of the word in secular Greek. Uses of the word are illustrated by 

reference not only to classical literature but also to inscriptions and papyri. In 
view of the expressly theological interest of the dictionary discussion here is kept 
to a minimum. 

oT Discussion of the word and related terms in the OT. The language of the church 

in the NT era was Greek, and the Old Testament Scriptures used by the church 

were largely the Greek translation of the Hebrew known as the Septuagint (LX X 

The discussion is therefore based on the terms as they occur in the LXX, but com- 

paring the LX X throughout with the corresponding Hebrew Masoretic text. This 

section also takes account of terms as used by Philo, Josephus, the Dead Sea 

Scrolls and rabbinic writers. 




NT Discussion of the word and related terms in the NT, noting statistical occur- 
rences, usage in relation to the background, and the specific emphases of indi- 
vidual writers and writings. 
For further discussion of the layout and scope of the dictionary the reader is referred 
to the Introduction to Volume I. A list of abbreviations and a key to the translitera- 
tion of Hebrew, Greek and Arabic words will be found in Volume I, pp. 31-47. 
Volume I, pp. 49-72, also contains a Glossary of Technical Terms which defines 
many of the terms currently used in theological discussion. This third volume con- 
tains a Combined Index to all three volumes, dealing with Hebrew and Aramaic 
words, Greek words, and subjects generally. In this connexion it is important to point 
out that, because of the inter-relation of ideas, relevant material on any given topic is 
not confined to the articles listed in the table of contents. There is, for example, an ar- 
ticle on Blood in Volume I, but there is also a discussion of blood in relation to atone- 
ment in the article on Reconciliation in Volume III. Similarly, the treatment of 
Divorce in Volume I is supplemented by the discussions under Discipline in the same 
volume, under Marriage in Volume II, and under Separate in Volume III. For this 
reason it is important to make full use of the indexes in order to explore the range of 
ideas of any topic under study. 

The work has been planned as a dictionary and not an encyclopedia. Its aim is not 
to say the last word on every subject, but to provide an introduction and the tools to 
enable the reader to make his own way into the field of study. For this reason the 
bibliographies at the end of the articles have been revised and enlarged to make them 
useful to an international readership. The bibliographies are normally divided into 
two sections: (a) works in English, and (b) works in other languages. The separation 
of the sections is designed to enable readers to see at a glance which works are rele- 
vant to their particular needs. Most English-speaking readers will naturally wish to 
consult the works in the first section. On the other hand, it was decided to include 
titles not available in English to meet the needs of the more specialist student. Even 
so, the works included represent only a fraction of the total volume of printed 
scholarly research. For the reader who wishes to take his studies still further, atten- 
tion may be drawn to the following specialist bibliographical works: B. M. Metzger, 
Index to Periodical Literature on Christ and the Gospels, New Testament Tools and 
Studies 6, 1962; A. J. Mattill, Jr. and M. Bedford Mattill, A Classified Bibliography 
of Literature on the Acts of the Apostles, New Testament Tools and Studies 7, 1966; 
B. M. Metzger, Index to Periodical Literature on the Apostle Paul, New Testament 
Tools and Studies 1, 19707; the massive Elenchus Bibliographicus Biblicus published 
annually by the Biblical Institute Press, Rome, under the editorship since 1949 of 
Peter Nober; the Book Lists of the Society for Old Testament Study (those for 1946— 
56 republished in Eleven Years of Bible Bibliography, 1957, those for 1957—66 in A 
Decade of Bible Bibliography, edited by G. W. Anderson, 1967, and those for 
1967-73 in Bible Bibliography, 1974, edited by P. R. Ackroyd), and New Testa- 
ment Abstracts: A Record of Current Literature published by Weston School of 
Theology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, in cooperation with The Council on the Study 
of Religion. Those who wish to keep abreast of German books should consult Das 
Evangelische Schrifttum: Ein systematisches Verzeichnis ftir Wissenschaft und 
Praxis, published annually by the Vereinigung Evangelischer Buchhandler, and Das 
Katholisches Schrifttum, published by the Verband Katholischer Verleger und 
Buchhandler. Also helpful are: J. L. Sayre and R. Hamburger, An Index of 


Festschriften in the Graduate Seminary Library of Phillips University, 1970, and An 
Index of Festschriften in Religion, New Titles 1971—1973, in the Graduate Seminary 
Library of Phillips University, 1973; the Index to Religious Periodical Literature 
published by the American Theological Library Association; and the review of jour- 
nal articles in Themelios, currently compiled by Professor R. P. Martin. Most major 
libraries contain the Catalogues of the Libraries of Congress and the British 
Museum, together with catalogues of unpublished theses and theses available on 

The translation of the original German articles as they appeared in the 
Theologisches Begriffslexikon zum Neuen Testament was prepared by a team of 
scholars which included Professor G. H. Boobyer, the Rev. Dr. Colin Brown, Mr. H. 
L. Ellison, the Rev. M. C. Freeman, the late Rev. Dr. George Ogg, Mr. John D. 
Manton, the Rev. Dr. A. J. M. Wedderburn. The magnificent indexes are the work of 
the Rev. Norman Hillyer, assisted by Mrs. Ruth Hillyer. The unrelenting work of 
proof reading which extended over five months was shared with the Editor by three 
people to whom the Editor and the dictionary are immeasurably indebted: the Rev. 
Norman Hillyer, Professor F. F. Bruce of the University of Manchester and Mrs. 
Olive Brown. Each has read the entire work in galley and page proof. In addition to 
the detection of printing errors, each of them has made a significant contribution to 
the finished text. On numerous points of detail the Editor has benefited from the ad- 
vice and comments of many friends and colleagues, especially in his teaching at 
Trinity College, Bristol, and Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena. The Rev. Dr. 
A. C. Thiselton of the University of Sheffield has kindly commented on the drafts of 
various bibliographies, and Professor D. W. Burdick of the Conservative Baptist 
Theological Seminary, Denver, Colorado, on the text in galley proof. 

The article on Resurrection contains a synoptic table of events in the resurrection 
narratives based on the table given by Professor G. E. Ladd in his book J Believe in 
the Resurrection of Jesus, 1975, published in Britain by Hodder and Stoughton and 
in the United States by Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. This is reproduced 
by kind permission of the author and publishers. 

It goes without saying that no work of scholarship is ever final. New books are be- 
ing published all the time, and existing work is always open to revision. As and when 
it becomes necessary to reprint any of the volumes of The New International 
Dictionary of New Testament Theology, it is the editorial policy to include any 
Supplementary material as an appendix to. each volume, with appropriate cross 
references in the text of the existing articles. This supplementary material will be 
made available separately to purchasers of the first editions of the dictionary. 




High Priest 








Quiet, Rest, 
Silence, Sound, 
Voice, Noise 



of Articles in Volume III 

Key GREEK Worps 









The Structure and Content of the 

Early Kerygma 






E. Guting. 
E. Guting, 
C. Brown 

J. Baehr 

U. Becker, 
D. Muller 
L. Coenen 
C. Brown 

E. Hoffmann 

C. H. Peisker, 
C. Brown 

U. Falkenroth, 
C. Brown 
C. Brown 

H. Baltensweiler 
H.-G. Link, 
J. Schattenmann 

R. K. Harrison, 
C. Brown 
R. K. Harrison 

M. J. Harris 
M. J. Harris 
M. J. Harris 

H. L. Ellison 

S. Solle 
F. Thiele 
F. Selter 


























U0 G0c 























The Resurrection in Contemporary 




Revelation in Contemporary Theology 



G. Harder 
J. Goetzmann 

P. C. Bottger 
B. Siede 

P. C. Bottger 
O. Becker 

H.-G. Link 
H.-G. Link, 
C. Brown 

H. Vorlander, 
C. Brown 

W. Mundle, 
C. Brown 
W. Mundle, 
C. Brown 

J. Schneider, 
C. Brown 

J. Schneider, 
C. Brown 

J. Schneider, 
C. Brown 

K. Munzer, 
C. Brown 
C. Brown 

K. H. Bartels, 
C. Brown 

W. Gunther, 
H. Krienke 

R. Hensel, 
C. Brown 

L. Coenen, 
C. Brown 
L. Coenen 
C. Brown 

W. Mundle 
W. Mundle 
B. Gartner, 
C. Brown 
C. Brown 
C. Brown 

Revile, . 






Precious Stones 


Lord’s Day 

First Fruits, 



















Precious Stones in the Apocalypse 






SL ALApitnsc 












H. Wahrisch, 
C. Brown 

W. Mundle 
H. Wahrisch 

E. Tiedtke 
R. Schippers 
R. Klober 

H. Seebass, 
C. Brown 

N. Hillyer 
N. Hillyer 
N. Hillyer 
N. Hillyer 
N. Hillyer 

W. Mundle, 
C. Brown 
W. Mundle 
H.-G. Link, 
E. Tiedtke, 
C. Brown 
N. Hillyer 
N. Hillyer 

J. Guhrt, 
H.-G. Link, 
C. Brown 
C. Brown 

W. Stott 
W. Stott 

H.-G. Link, 
C. Brown 
F. Thiele, 
C. Brown 

J. J. Scott, Jr. 
N. Hillyer 

N. Hillyer 

K. Haacker 

H. Bietenhard, 
C. Brown 

J. Stafford 














Seed, Plant, 
Grass, Flower, 










YPALUATEVG grammateus 
ypagn graphe 
ogpayic sphragis 
LvoTHplov mysterion 
The Messianic Secret 

Opaw horao 
KoAAoUpiov kollourion 
dvaBpAénw anablepo 
EuBAENW emblepo 
dteviCw atenizo 
Oéatpov theatron 
onépua sperma 
Gepiopdc therismos 
EvploKw heurisko 
Cytew zeteo 
épavvaw eraunao 
yopicwo chorizo 
oxico schizo 
O1AKOVEW diakoneo 
AQTPEvw latreuo 
AgITOVPYEW leitourgeo 
oKia skia 

OElwW seio 
aaléevw saleuo 
Extivagaw ektinasso 
aidws aidos 
aiayvvy aischyne 
moun poimen 
O€IKVOLLI deiknymi 
GNOOEIEIC apodeixis 
TEKLNPIOV tekmerion 
GNAOTHC haplotes 

N. Hillyer 

R. Mayer, 
C. Brown 

R. Schippers 

G. Finkenrath 
C. Brown 

K. Dahn 

W. L. Liefeld 

W. L. Liefeld 
L. Liefeld 
L. Liefeld 

L. Liefeld 

A. Demarest, 

A. Demarest 

-G. Link 

J. Harris, 







B. Gartner 



C. Brown 

N. Hillyer 
N. Hillyer 
N. Hillyer 

H.-G. Link, 
E. Tiedtke 
H.-G. Link 

E. Beyreuther 
C. Brown 

G. T. D. Angel 
G. T. D. Angel 

B. Gartner 



Prisoner, - 


Take Away, 



Son of God, 
Son of Man, 
Servant of God, 
Son of David 



Holy Spirit 

Stir up, Trouble, 





maic Geov 

O vidc tov 

vlog tod Oeov 

viog Aavid 






pais theou 

ho hyios tou 
hyios tou theou 

hyios Dauid 

The Genealogies of Jesus Christ 

The Virgin Birth 












W. Gunther 
W. Gunther 
W. Gunther 
W. Bauder 

R. T. France 

H.-G. Link, 

R. Tuente 
H.-G. Link 

R. Tuente 

G. T. D. Angel 

O. Flender, 
C. Brown 

E. Tiedtke, 
C. Brown 

D. F. Payne 

O. Michel, 

I. H. Marshall 

O. Michel, 

I. H. Marshall 

O. Michel, 

I. H. Marshall 
O. Michel, 

I. H. Marshall 

N. Hillyer 

J. Stafford Wright 

K. H. Bartels 
K. H. Bartels 
K. H. Bartels 

G. Harder, 
C. Brown 

E. Kamlah, 
J. D. G. Dunn, 
C. Brown 

H. Muller 

G. Braumann 
G. Braumann 
H.-G. Link, 

J. Schattenmann 
G. Braumann 












Suffer Keley ge) pascho B. Gartner 719 
Suffice, dpKéw arkeo B. Siede 727 
Satisfy [KAVOG hikanos W. von Meding 728 
Sun, WA10¢G ~— helios D. A. Hagner 730 
Moon, osdnvy selene D. A. Hagner 733 
Stars dotnp aster D. A. Hagner 734 
Swear, Oath Guvv@ omnyo H.-G. Link 737 
Take, O€youal dechomai H.-G. Link 744 
Receive Aaupavw lambano B. Siede 747 
Tax, Loyeia logeia M. J. Harris 751 
Tax Collector OTATHP stater C. Brown 752 
TEAWVIOV telonion N. Hillyer 755 
Teach, Ol0agKW  didasko K. Wegenast 759 
Instruct, dldacKahos didaskalos K. Wegenast 765 
Tradition, dloackadia didaskalia K. Wegenast 768 
Education, KATHYEW katecheo K. Wegenast 771 
Discipline NApPQAolowl paradidomi K. Wegenast 772 
MAIOEVW paideuo D. First 775 
Temple vaoc naos W. von Meding 781 
TO LEpOVv to hieron C. Brown 785 
TO EOWTEPOV to esoteron D. H. Madvig 794 
TO KATANETAOUA to katapetasma D. H. Madvig 794 
TO MEGOTOLYOV to mesotoichon D. H. Madvig 795 
OTDAOG. stylos D. H. Madvig 795 
yalogvAdkiov gazophylakion D. H. Madvig 795 
VEWKOpPOG neokoros D. H. Madvig 796 
TTEPVYIOV pterygion D. H. Madvig 796 
Tempt, _  -MEIPAGUOG peirasmos W. Schneider, 798 
Test, . C. Brown 
Approve OOKIULOG dokimos H. Haarbeck 808 
Tent, OoKnVYH skene M. J. Harris, 81] 
Tabernacle C. Brown 
Thank, Praise, alvew aineo H. Schultz 816 
Eucharist evyaplotia eucharistia H.-H. Esser 817 
Think, dladoyiCoual dialogizomai D. Furst 820 
Mean, OOKEW dokeo D. Miller 821 
Consider, Reckon Aoyicoual logizomai J. Eichler 822 
Time atwv aion J. Guhrt 826 
Kalpoc kairos H.-C. Hahn 833 
XpoVvoc chronos H.-C.Hahn © 839 






Tree, Plant, Root, 


Turn Away 
Type, Pattern 




Vine, Wine 




Want, Lack, 
























H.-C. Hahn 

G. F. Hawthorne 
W. Mundle 

W. Mundle 

R. K. Harrison 
R. K. Harrison 
R. Grob 

W. L. Liefeld 

W. L. Liefeld 

E. M. Embry 

N. Hillyer 
M. J. Harris 
A. C. Thiselton 
M. J. Harris 
H. Muller 

E. D. Schmitz 
W.L. Lane 
W.L. Lane 
W.L. Lane 
W.L. Lane 
C. Brown 

H. Wahrisch 
H.-G. Link, 
A. Ringwald 
R. P. Martin 
G. Ebel 

G. Ebel 

G. Ebel 

G. Ebel 

N. Hillyer 
N. Hillyer 
N. Hillyer 

W.L. Lane 










- Wilderness, 

Lay Waste, 










Jesus and Revolution 




Gpos, vYNAOG 
















topos pedinos 
oros, hypselos 











W.L. Lane 

C. Brown, 
J. Watts 
M. Langley 

O. Bocher 
O. Bocher 
O. Bocher 
R. K. Harrison 
R. K. Harrison 
. Harrison 


. Link 
. Harrison 
. Harrison 


. L. Liefeld 
. L. Liefeld 
. Brown 

. Brown 

CY OOs22° 0 fem fF: 

. Muller 
. Muller 

J. Goetzmann 
J. ea 
C. Brow 

H. Weigelt 


L. Coenen, 
A. A. Trites 

N. Hillyer 

H. Vorlander, 
C. Brown 

E. Beyreuther 
O. Becker, 

C. Brown 

S. Solle 

H. Haarbeck 
G. Fries, 

B. Klappert, 
C. Brown 

O. Betz 


Language and Meaning in Religion A. C. Thiselton 1123 
Work, Epyacouat ergazomai H.-C. Hahn 1147 
Do, MOLEW poieo F. Thiele 1152 
Accomplish Mpdcow prasso H.-C. Hahn 1155 
Yoke Cvyosc Zygos H.-G. Link, 1160 
C. Brown 
Zeal Cryidoc zelos H.-C. Hahn 1166 
onovon spoude W. Bauder 1168 
Appendix: Prepositions and Theology in the Greek New M. J. Harris 1171 




Editors and Advisors 
Editor of the English edition . . . . . . . . Colin Brown 
General Editor of the German edition . . Lothar Coenen 

Greek philology, philosophy and classical 

background .. . Gerhard Fries 
Old Testament and Septuagint ..... Horst Seebass 
Qumran ........... . . Reinhard Deieiwnalber 
Rabbinics - oe ee ew ee) 6). ).)6UHans Bietenhard 

New Testament philology and theology . Hans Bietenhard 

Church history and historical theology . Erich Beyreuther 
Bibliographical consultant to the German 

ediion ........ .... . . Werner Georg Kummel 
Indexes ......... .. . . «Norman Hillyer 

Contributors to Volume 3 

In the following list the author’s work is denoted by the Greek words or sub-title which follow 
the title. 

Gervais T. D. Angel, M.A., M.Ed., Dean of Studies, Trinity College, Bristol 
Show, Proof, Demonstrate, apodeixis, tekmerion; Slave, Servant, Captive, Prisoner, 
Freedman, Libertinos 

Jurgen Baehr, Langlingen tiber Celle 
Priest, High Priest, hiereus 

Heinrich Baltensweiler, Dr. theol., Professor, Basel 
Pure, Clean, hagnos 

Karl-Heinz Bartels, Dr. theol., Niderbieber 
Remember, Remembrance, mimneskomai (part); Song, Hymn, Psalm, hymnos, 
psalmos, ode 



Wolfgang Bauder, Cologne 

Sin, paraptoma; Zeal, spoude 

Oswald Becker, Bonn 

Recompense, Reward, Gain, Wages, opsonion; Woman, Mother, Virgin, Widow, 

parthenos (part) 

Ulrich Becker, Dr. theol., Professor, Hanover 

Proclamation, Preach, Kerygma, angello (part) 

Otto Betz, Dr. theol., Professor, Tiibingen 

Word, Tongue, Utterance, rhema 

Erich Beyreuther, Dr. theol., Feldkirchen, Munich 

Shepherd, poimen; Woman, Mother, Virgin, Widow, meter 

Hans Bietenhard, Dr. theol., Professor, Steffisburg 

Satan, Beelzebul, Devil, Exorcism, diabolos (part) 

Otto Bocher, Dr. theol., Dr. phil., Professor, Mainz 

Water, Lake, Sea, Well, River, thalassa, pege, hydor;, Wilderness, Desert, Lay Waste, 
Mountain, Plain, eremos 

Paul Christoph Bottger, Dr. theol., Rheydt 

Recompense, Reward, Gain, Wages, apodidomi, misthos 

Georg Braumann, Dr. theol., Billerbeck 

Strength, Force, Horn, Violence, Power, bia; ischys, kratos 

Colin Brown, M.A., B.D., Ph.D., Professor of Systematic Theology, Fuller Theological 
Seminary, Pasadena, California 

Pride, hyperephanos (part); Proclamation, Preach, Kerygma, The Structure and 
Content of the Early Kerygma; Prophet, prophetes (part); Punishment, Vengeance, 
dike (part), kolasis; Quench, sbennymi (part); Reconciliation, Restoration, Pro- 
pitiation, Atonement, hilaskomai (part), katallasso (part); Redemption, Loose, 
Ransom, Deliverance, Release, Salvation, Saviour, /yo (part), lytron (part), rhyomai 
(part), sozo (part), soter (part); Remain, meno (part), adialeiptos; Remember, 
Remembrance, mimneskomai (part); Rest, anapausis (part); Resurrection, anastasis 
(part), The Resurrection in Contemporary Theology; Revelation, epiphaneia (part), 
chrematizo, Revelation in Contemporary Theology; Revile, Blaspheme, Slander, 
blasphemeo (part); Righteousness, Justification, dikaiosyne (part); Rock, Stone, 
Corner-stone, Pearl, Precious Stones, petra (part), lithos (part); Rule, Standard, 
Measure, kanon, metron; Sacrifice, First Fruits, Altar, Offering, ‘aparche (part), thyo 
(part); Satan, Beelzebul, Devil, Exorcism, diabolos (part); Scripture, Writing, graphe 
(part); Secret, Mystery, The Messianic Secret; Seed, Plant, Grass, Flower, Harvest, 
sperma (part); Separate, Divide, chorizo (part); Show, Proof, Demonstrate, deiknymi; 
Smell, osme (part); Snatch, Take Away, Rapture, harpazo (part); Soul, psyche (part); 
Spirit, Holy Spirit, pneuma (part); Tax, Tax Collector, stater; Temple, to hieron; 
Tempt, Test, Approve, peirasmos (part); Tent, Tabernacle, skene (part); Vine, Wine, 
ampelos; War, Soldier, Weapon, polemos (part); Wilderness, Desert, Lay Waste, 
Mountain, Plain, oros, hypselos (part), Sina; Wisdom, Folly, Philosophy, sophia 
(part); Woman, Mother, Virgin, Widow, gyne (part), parthenos (part); Word, Tongue, 
Utterance, Jogos (part); Yoke, zygos (part) 

Lothar Coenen, Dr. theol., Wuppertal 

Proclamation, Preach, Kerygma, kerysso; Resurrection, anastasis (part), egeiro; 
Witness, Testimony, martyria (part) 

Karl Dahn, Dozent, Frankfurt am Main 

See, Vision, Eye, horao 

Bruce A. Demarest, M.A., Ph.D., Associate Professor, Conservative Baptist Theological 
Seminary, Denver, Colorado 


Seed, Plant, Grass, Flower, Harvest, sperma (part), therismos 


James D. G. Dunn, M.A., B.D., Ph.D., Lecturer in New Testament, University of. 
Spirit, Holy Spirit, pneuma (part) 
Gunther Ebel, Speyer 
Walk, Run, Way, Conduct, anastrepho, hodos, peripateo, poreuomai 
Johannes Eichler, Frankfurt am Main 
Think, Mean, Consider, Reckon, logizomai 
Henry Leopold Ellison, B.A., B.D., Dawlish, Devon 
Rabbi, rhabbi 
E. Margaret Embry, B.A., B.D., Lecturer, Trinity College, Bristol 
Tree, Plant, Root, Branch, dendron 
Hans-Helmut Esser, Dr. theol., Professor, Horstmar bei Munster 
Thank, Praise, Eucharist, eucharistia 
Ulrich Falkenroth, Dr. theol., Braunschweig 
Punishment, Vengeance, dike (part) 
Ginter Finkenrath, Burscheid-Hilgen 
Secret, Mystery, mysterion 
Otto Flender, Villigst 
Smell, osme (part) 
Richard Thomas France, M.A., B.D., Ph.D., Warden of Tyndale House, Cambridge 
Sit, Kathemi 
Gerhard Fries, Director of Studies, Duisburg 
Word, Tongue, Utterance, Jogos (part) 
Dieter Furst, Director of Studies and Student Pastor, Bayreuth 
Teach, Instruct, Tradition, Education, Discipline, paideuo; Think, Mean, Consider, 
Reckon, dialogizomai 
Burkhard Gartner, Hamburg 
Revelation, epiphaneia (part); Seek, Find, heurisko; Simplicity, Sincerity, Upright- 
ness, haplotes; Suffer, pascho 
Jurgen Goetzmann, Essen 
Reason, Mind, Understanding, synesis; Wisdom, Folly, Philosophy, moria, sophia 
Rudolf Grob, Obermeilen, Zurich 
Touch, hapto . 
Walther Gunther, Dr. theol., Stuttgart 
Remnant, Leave, leimma (part); Sin, adikia, hamartia, parabasis 
Eberhard Guting, Dr. theol., Cappel bei Marburg 
Pride, hybris, hyperephanos (part) 
Joachim Guhrt, Bentheim 
Rule, Standard, Measure, kanon (part); Time, aion 
Klaus Haacker, Dr. theol., Professor, Kirchliche Hochschule, Wuppertal 
Samaritan, Samaria, Samarites 
Hermann Haarbeck, Schwelm 
Tempt, Test, Approve, dokimos; Word, Tongue, Utterance, glossa 
Donald A. Hagner, B.A., B.D., Th.M., Ph.D., Associate Professor, Fuller Theological 
Seminary, Pasadena, California 
Sun, Moon, Stars, helios, selene, aster 
Hans-Christoph Hahn, Bad Boll 
Shadow, skia; Time, kairos, chronos, hora; Work, Do, Accomplish, ergazomai, 
prasso; Zeal, zelos 
Gunther Harder, Dr. theol., Dr. jur., Professor, Berlin 
Reason, Mind, Understanding, nous; Soul, psyche (part) 



Murray J. Harris, M.A., B.D., Ph.D., Professor of New Testament, Bible College of New 
Zealand, Henderson, Auckland 
Quiet, Rest, Silence, Sound, Voice, Noise, hesychia, echos, phone; Separate, Divide, 
chorizo (part), schizo; Tax, Tax Collector, logeia; Tent, Tabernacle, skene (part); 
Trumpet, salpinx; Turn Away, apotrepo; Appendix: Prepositions and Theology in the 
Greek New Testament 
Roland K. Harrison, B.D., M.Th., Ph.D., D.D., Professor of Old Testament, Wycliffe 
College, Toronto 
Quench, sbennymi (part), asbestos; Torment, odino, talaiporeo; Water, Lake, Sea, 
Well, River, kataklysmos, Iordanes, limne; Weakness, Sickness, Disease, Paralysis, 
malakia, paralytikos 
Gerald F. Hawthorne, A.B., A.M., Ph.D., Professor of Greek, Wheaton College, Illinois 
Tithe, dekate 
Robert Hensel, Dr. theol., Dekan, Bad Bergzabern 
Rest, anapausis (part) 
Klaus Hess, Nuremberg 
Serve, Deacon, Worship, diakoneo, latreuo, leitourgeo 
Norman Hillyer, B.D., S.Th., formerly Librarian, Tyndale House, Cambridge 
Rob, Steal, /estes, sylao, apostereo, andrapodistes, spelaion; Rock, Stone, Corner- 
stone, Pearl, Precious Stones, margarites, Precious Stones in the Apocalypse; 
Sadducees, Herodians, Herodianoi; Salt, halas; Scribe, grammateus; Shake, seio, 
saleuo, ektinasso; Son, Son of God, Son of Man, Servant of God, Son of David, The 
Genealogies of Jesus Christ; Tax, Tax Collector, telonion; Tribe, phyle; Wall, Hedge, 
Palisade, teichos, phragmos, charax,; Woe, ouai 
Ernst Hoffmann, Vevey, Switzerland 
Promise, epangelia 
Eberhard Kamlah, Dr. theol., Professor, Mainz 
Spirit, Holy Spirit, pneuma (part) 
Bertold Klappert, Dr. theol., Gottingen 
Word, Tongue, Utterance, Jogos (part) 
Rolf Klober, Bayreuth 
Right, Worthy, orthos 
Hartmut Krienke, Wuppertal 
Remnant, Leave, leimma (part) 
William L. Lane, Th.D., Professor, Department of Philosophy and Religion, Western 
Kentucky University, Bowling Green, Kentucky 
Vessel, Pot, Potter, Mix, keramion, ostrakinos, pelos, phyrama; Want, Lack, Need, 
hysteros, chreia 
Myrtle Langley, B.A., B.D., Ph.D., Lecturer, Trinity College, Bristol 
War, Soldier, Weapon, Jesus and Revolution | 
Walter L. Liefeld, Th.B., A.M., Ph.D., Chairman and Professor of New Testament, Trinity 
Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, Illinois 
See, Vision, Eye, kollourion, anablepo, emblepo, atenizo, theatron; Transfigure, 
Transfiguration, Transform, metamorphoo, metaschematizo; Wilderness, Desert, Lay 
Waste, Mountain, Plain, oreinos, topos pedinos, oros, hypselos (part) 
Hans-Georg Link, Dr. theol., Cologne 
Pure, Clean, katharos (part); Reconciliation, Restoration, Propitiation, Atonement, 
apokatastasis, hilaskomai (part); Rock, Stone, Corner-stone, Pearl, Precious Stones, 
lithos (part); Rule, Standard, Measure, kanon (part); Sacrifice, First Fruits, Altar, 
Offering, aparche (part); Seek, Find, zeteo; Shame, Respect, aidos (part), aischyne; 
Slave, Servant, Captive, Prisoner, Freedman, aichmalotos (part), desmios; Strength, 
Force, Horn, Violence, Power, keras (part); Swear, Oath, omnyo; Take, Receive, 



dechomai; Virtue, Blameless, arete (part); Weakness, Sickness, Disease, Paralysis, 
astheneia, nosos; Yoke, zygos (part) 
Donald H. Madvig, A.B., B.D., Th.M., M.A., Ph.D., Professor of Biblical Literature, Bethel 
Theological Seminary, St. Paul, Minnesota 
Temple, to esoteron, to katapetasma, to mesotoichon, stylos, gazophylakion, neokoros, 
I. Howard Marshall, M.A., B.D., Ph.D., Reader in New Testament Exegesis, University of 
Son, Son of God, Son of Man, Servant of God, Son of David, pais theou (part), ho 
hyios tou anthropou (part), hyios tou theou (part), hyios Dauid (part) 
Ralph P. Martin, M.A., Ph.D., Professor of New Testament, Fuller Theological Seminary, 
Pasadena, California 
Virtue, Blameless, Haustafeln 
Reinhold Mayer, Dr. theol., Wiss. Rat, Tubingen 
Scripture, Writing, graphe (part) 
Wichmann von Meding, Winsen/ Aller 
Suffice, Satisfy, hikanos; Temple, naos 
Otto Michel, Dr. theol., formerly Professor of New Testament, Tubingen 
Son, Son of God, Son of Man, Servant of God, Son of David, pais theou (part), ho 
hyios tou anthropou (part), hyios tou theou (part), hyios Dauid (part) 
Leon L. Morris, B.Sc., Th.L., B.D., M.Th., Ph.D., Principal of Ridley College, Melbourne 
Weather, astrape 
Dietrich Muller, Marburg 
Proclamation, Preach, Kerygma, angello (part); Think, Mean, Consider, Reckon, 
dokeo; Will, Purpose, boulomai, thelo 
Heinrich Muller, Dr. theol., Bleicherode 
Type, Pattern, typos 
Hermann Muller, Dr. phil., Hilchenbach 
Stir Up, Trouble, Agitate, tarasso 
Wilhelm Mundle, Lic. theol., Professor, Marburg 
Redemption, Loose, Ransom, Deliverance, Release, Salvation, Saviour, lyo (part), 
lytron (part), Revelation, apokalypto, deloo; Revile, Blaspheme, Slander, katalaleo; 
Rock, Stone, Corner-stone, Pearl, Precious Stones, petra (part), gonia; Torment, 
basanos, kolaphizo 
Karlfried Munzer, Gauting 
Remain,. meno (part) 
David F. Payne, M.A., Head of the Department of Semitic Studies, The Queen’s University 
of Belfast 
Solomon, Solomon 
Carl Heinz Peisker, Dr. theol., Mtihlheim, Ruhr 
Prophet, prophetes (part) 
Karl Heinrich Ringwald, Tiibingen 
Virtue, Blameless, arete (part) 
Johannes Schattenmann, D. theol., Ottobrun 
Pure, Clean, katharos (part); Strength, Force, Horn, Violence, Power, keras (part) 
Reinier Schippers, Dr. theol., Professor, Free University of Amsterdam 
Right, Worthy, artios; Seal, sphragis 
Ernst Dieter Schmitz, Wuppertal 
Unanimity, homothymadon | 
Johannes Schneider, D. theol., Dr. theol., Professor, Berlin 
Redemption, Loose, Ransom, Deliverance. Release, Salvation, Saviour, rhyomai 
(part), sozo (part), soter (part) 



Walter Schneider, Hanover 
Tempt, Test, Approve, peirasmos (part) 
Helmut Schultz, Marburg 
Thank, Praise, Eucharist, aineo 
J. Julius Scott, Jr., B.A., B.D., Ph.D., Professor of New Testament, Wheaton Graduate 
School, Wheaton, Illinois 
Sadducees, Herodians, Saddoukaioi 
Horst Seebass, Dr. theol., Professor, Munster 
Righteousness, Justification, dikaiosyne (part) 
Manfred Seitz, Dr. theol., Professor, Heidelberg 
Seek, Find, eraunao 
Friedel Selter, Rheinkamp-Repelen 
Ready, Prepare, Gird, zonnymi 
Burghard Siede, Coburg 
Recompense, Reward, Gain, Wages, kerdos; Suffice, Satisfy, arkeo; Take, Receive, 
Siegfried Solle, Darmstadt 
Ready, Prepare, Gird, hetoimos; Woman, Mother, Virgin, Widow, chera 
Wilfred Stott, B.A., B.D., B.Litt., D.Phil., formerly Principal of St. Paul’s Theological 
College, Limuru, Kenya 
Sabbath, Lord’s Day, sabbaton, kyriake 
Friedrich Thiele, Dr. theol., Kassel 
Ready, Prepare, Gird, kataskeuazo; Sacrifice, First Fruits, Offering, thyo (part); 
Work, Do, Accomplish, poieo 
Anthony C. Thiselton, B.D., M.Th., Ph.D., Lecturer in Biblical Studies, University of 
Truth, aletheia; Word, Tongue, Utterance, Language and Meaning in Religion 
Erich Tiedtke, Frankfurt am Main 
Right, Worthy, axios; Rock, Stone, Corner-stone, Pearl, Precious Stones, /ithos 
(part); Shame, Respect, aidos (part); Snatch, Take Away, Rapture, harpazo (part) 
Allison A. Trites, M.A., Ph.D., Acadia Divinity College, Acadia University, Wolfville, 
Nova Scotia 
Witness, Testimony, martyria (part) 
Rudolf Tuente, Bremerhaven 
-Slave, Servant, Captive, Prisoner, Freedman, aichmalotos (part), doulos 
Herwart Vorlander, Dr. phil., Professor, Ludwigsburg 
Reconciliation, Restoration, Propitiation, Atonement, katallasso (part); Woman, 
Mother, Virgin, Widow, gyne (part) 
Hans Wahrisch, Rheydt 
Revile, Blaspheme, Slander, blasphemeo (part), loidoreo; Virtue, Blameless, anen- 
John D. W. Watts, B.A., Th.M., Ph.D., Associate Professor of Old Testament, Fuller 
Theological Seminary 
War, Soldier, Weapon, polemos (part) 
Klaus Wegenast, Dr. theol., Professor, Liineburg 
Teach, Instruct, Tradition, Education, Discipline, didasko, didaskalos, didaskalia, 
katecheo, paradidomi 
Horst Weigelt, Dr. theol., Professor, Erlangen 
Wisdom, Folly, Philosophy, philosophia 
J. Stafford Wright, M.A., formerly Principal of Tyndale Hall, Bristol 
Satan, Beelzebul, Devil, Exorcism, exhorkistes; Son, Son of God, Son of Man. 
Servant of God, Son of David, The Virgin Birth 




| Bois bB pic (hybris), insolence, arrogance, insult, ill-treatment; 
(oes <1 | bBpilw (hybrizo), act arrogantly, ill-treat; oBpiotrc 
(hybristés), violent, insolent man; évvf pifw (enhybrizo), despise, insult. 

CL & OT hybris is a very ancient compound (E. Schwyzer, Griechische Grammatik, I, 

19537, 495), formed from y (Cypriot, Rhodian equivalent of epi) and bri 
(cf. briaros, weighty; britho, weigh, be heavy). Originally it meant excess weight, 
excess power; sometimes more concretely, ill-treatment, abuse, insult; sometimes 
more abstractly, arrogance, insolence, brutality. The word is frequently used in the 
Odyssey, to denote Penelope’s suitors (e.g. 1, 227; 24, 352). hybris appears ob- 
jectively as an infringement of the order of justice established by Zeus, which 
enabled community-life in the Greek polis to be maintained. It is the opposite of 
eunomia, good order, to the observance of which the gods pay close attention (as 
early as Homer, Od. 17, 487) and of noos theoudés, the attitude that fears the gods. 
Classical tragedy contrasted hybris to sdphrosyné, modesty, which respects the 
limits laid down for men. Therefore hybris is not, strictly speaking, directed against | 
the gods (J. J. Fraenkel, Hybris, 1942, 73)..What the malefactor harms is good 
order. In the 5th century B.c. hybris became the classical expression of “‘numinous 
fear, i.e., of the Greek sense of sin from the religious standpoint” (G. Bertram, 
TDNT VIII 297; cf. Soph., Trach. 280; OT. 873). But in Euripides human norms 
replace those set by fate (Heraclidae 388; Or. 708). 

There are many derivatives as early as the language of Homer; hybrizé, to act 
arrogantly, ill-treat, insult (after Homer: of animals, to be uncontrollable; of plants, 
to grow luxuriantly; as a legal term to inflict bodily harm); ephybrizo, insult; 
hybristés, violent, dissolute, insolent man (after Homer: of animals, uncontrollable, 
restive; also. of things, e.g. new wine). Of the numerous more recent formations the 
adj. hybristikos is important: arrogant, wanton, insolent (Plato onwards). 

The OT material is dealt with under — hyperéphanos. 

NT 1. It is remarkable that, in contrast with the OT, the abstract use of hybris in 
the sense of pride is completely absent from the NT. In 2 Cor. 12:10, where it is 
used alongside didgmos, persecution, the word clearly means ill-treatment. The 
same is true of 1 Tim. 1:13, where Paul describes himself as one who formerly was 
a blasphemer, persecutor and a violent, insolent man (blasphémon kai didktén kai 
hybristén). In Acts 27:10, 21 it refers to hardship, damage and disaster caused by 
the elements (cf. Pindar, Pyth, 1, 140; Josephus, Ant. 3, 133; Arndt, 839). Similarly 
the vb. Aybrizo regularly has the meaning of ill-treat: 1 Thess. 2:2 and Acts 14:5 of 


the persecution of Paul and his companions; in the parable of Matt. 22:6 of the 
death of the servant; in the prediction of suffering in Lk. 18:32 of the passion. 
In Mk. 11:45 it means to insult. 

2. The noun formed from this vb., Aybristés, violent, insolent man, occurs twice 
(Rom. 1:30; | Tim. 1:13). According to O. Michel on Rom. 1:30 a Aybristés was 
‘“‘originally a man who paid no attention to the wrath of God and committed an 
offence against the property or the honour of God (1 Tim. 1:13) (Der Brief an die 
Romer, KEK 4, 196718, 61 f.). But the words which occur in the context suggest in 
the first instance evil conduct in the world and inter-personal relationships, rather 
than open enmity towards God. The catalogue of vices listed in Rom. 1:29 f. is 
adduced by Paul as itself the outcome of idolatry and as a judgment by God (cf. 
1:28). Thus RSV translates Aybristas here as “‘insolent’’. Similarly, theostygeis, 
which is a pass. form, is best translated as ‘“‘hated by God’’, bearing the same sense 
that it has in cl. Gk., although it can have an act. meaning (‘haters of God’’). It 
would be preferable, therefore, to interpret | Tim. 1:13 also in the light of the use 
of the vb. Aybrizo; although hybristés comes most near in meaning to hyperéphanos, 
one can scarcely trace the idea of pride in it. 

3. The compound enhybrizo, to insult, outrage (with “‘the Spirit of grace”’ as its 
object) occurs in Heb. 10:29, in parallel with katapated, to trample underfoot, to 
treat outrageously (‘‘the Son of God’’; suggesting arrogant outrage; cf. LXX Dan. 
8:10; and possibly Jerusalem in Zech. 12:3 LXX) and koinon hégeisthai, to treat as 
profane (‘“‘the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified’’). In the use of the 
word the distinction made in OT and rab. Judaism between deliberate and in- 
voluntary sin (v. 26) is taken up and expounded (Heb. hézid, to act arrogantly, 
maliciously). Religious apostasy was regarded as an unforgivable sin at Qumran 
(1QS 2:13 f.; 3:4; cf. F. F. Bruce, “ “To the Hebrews’ or “To the Essenes’?”’, N7‘S 
9, 1962-63, 224 ff.; The Epistle to the Hebrews, NLC, 1964, 256-64). In dealing with 
unforgivable — sin the present passage makes explicit allusion to Isa. 26:11; Deut. 
17:2-6; 32:35 f.; and Exod. 24:8, arguing a fortiori from instances of judgment 
in the OT. E. Guting 

roe «ONE pHdavoc (hyperéphanos), proud; brepndavia (hypereé- 
| bmepnpavoc phania), pride; adata@v (alazén), boastful; adacoveia 
(alazoneia), boastfulness. 

cL 1. The part. hyperéphaneontes is the oldest attestation of the word group (Homer 

Tl. 11, 694). Its etymology is not clear; it is perhaps connected with katéphes, 
cast down. Along with hyperénoreon it means proud. Other intrans. verbal forms 
used in the same sense occur in the LXX and later. From Polybius onwards the vb. 
is also used transitively: to treat arrogantly, despise. The adj. hyperéphanos (Hesiod 
onwards) usually means arrogant, proud; occasionally, prodigal. It also has a 
positive use (e.g. in Plato): magnificent. The writers of the classical period also 
used the noun hyperéphania in the sense of pride, arrogance, contempt. 

2. The alazon, the wandering charlatan or braggart, was a favourite comedy 
character (Cratinus, Eupolis, Aristophanes, Alkaios, Menander). The wandering 
sophist was also scornfully nicknamed alazén. The word (occurring as an adj. 
from Herodotus) is derived either from the Thracian folk-name Alazon (Bonfante, 



Frisk) or from alaomai, to wander (Boisacq, Hofmann). Its later meaning is 
generally braggart, show-off; and that of the corresponding abstract noun alazoneia 
boastfulness, imposture. Similarly, likewise the vb. alazoneuomai (Aristophanes 
onwards) means to make false representations, to brag. 

oT In the OT a central theme of the prophetic message (e.g. Isa. 13:11), and also 
of the Wisdom literature, is that God’s judgment destroys all man’s pride. 
Along with the four words mentioned above, many others occur which are not 
taken up by the NT (e.g. agerdchia, arrogance, metedros, haughty, and especially 
those formed with megal- and hyps-, hypsélo-). hybris, in particular, occurs fre- 
quently in senses not attested in the NT: pride, arrogance, and also insult, mockery 
(and, as in the NT, ill-treatment). Although the number of Heb. equivalents for 
which these words stand is large, more than half the occurrences stand for deriva- 

tives of the root, ga’ah, be exalted. 
hybris stands for formations from ga@’ah, be high, arrogant, at Lev. 26:19; Job 
35:12; 37:4; Prov. 8:13; 14:3; 16:18 f.; 29:23; Hos. 5:5; 7:10; Amos 6:8; Nah. 
2:2(3); Zeph. 2:10; 3:11; Zech. 9:6; 10:11; Isa. 9:9(8); 13:11; 16:6; 23:9; 25:11; 
28:1, 3; Jer. 13:9; 48(31):29; Ezek. 30:6, 18; 32:12; 33:28. It also stands for 
géwah, arrogant speech at Jer. 13:17; for za@d6én, insolence, presumptuousness at 
Prov. 11:2; 13:10; Jer. 50(27):32; Ezek. 7:10; for /asén, boasting prattle, at 
Prov. 1:22; for ‘alliz, wanton, presumptuous, at Isa. 23:7; and rim, haughtiness, 
at Isa 2:17. It is without Heb. equivalent at Est. 4:17; Job 15:26 f.; 22:12; Prov. 
14:10; 19:10, 18; 21:4; Wis. 2:19; 4:18; Sir. 10:6, 8; 21:4; Mic. 6:10; Isa. 10:33; 
Jer. 13:9; 1 Macc. 3:20; 2 Macc. 8:17; 3 Macc. 2:3, 21; 3:25; 6:12. hybrizo stands 
for formations from ga@ 4h at Isa. 13:3; Jer. 48(31): 29; for ‘alaz, exult, at Isa. 23:12; 
for qgalal in hiph., treat with contempt, at 2 Sam. 19:44(43); and is without Heb. 
equivalent at 2 Macc. 14:42; 3 Macc. 6:9. hybristés stands for gé’ (Isa. 16:6) 
and géeh (Job 40:11[6]; Prov. 15:25; 16:19; Isa. 2:12), both words meaning 
haughty; for rim at Prov. 6:17; and is without equivalent at Prov. 27:13; Jer. 


hyperéphania(-eia) stands mainly for formations from gda@’ah, be high, arrogant: 
Pss. 17(16): 10; 31(30):18, 23; 36(35):11; 59(58):12; 73(72):6; Prov. 8:13; Amos 
8:7; Isa. 16:6; Jer. 48(31):29; Ezek. 7:20; 16:49, 56; Dan. 4:34 (Theodotion). 
It also stands for besa’, profit, at Exod. 18:21; za@don, insolence, at Deut. 17:12; 
1 Sam. 17:28; Obad. 1:3; for rim at Num. 15:30; and is without equivalent at 
Est. 4:17; 8:13; Pss. 74(73):3; 101(100):7; Wis. 5:8; Sir. 10:7, 12 f., 18; 15:8; 
16:8; 22:22; 48:18; 51:10; Dan. 4:19; 1 Macc. 1:21, 24; 2:47, 49; 2 Macc. 1:28; 
5:21; 7:36; 9:7f., 11; 3 Macc. 2:5, 17. The vb. hyperéphaneuomai stands for ga’ ah 
at Ps. 10:2 (9:23); Job 22:29; and zid, act presumptuously, at Neh. 9:16; Dan. 
5:20 Theodotion; and for ga@dah again at Sir. 10:9. hyperéphanos stands for 
zéd, insolent, presumptuous, at Ps. 119(118):21, 51, 69, 78, 122; gé@eh or ga’*yon, 
haughty, arrogant, Job 40:12(7): Pss. 94(93):2; 123(122):4; 140(139):5; gabdah, 
that which is high, exalted, Ps. 101(100):5; /us, deride, scoff, scorn, Prov. 3:34; 
Isa. 29:20; ‘aris, master, Isa. 13:11; rahab, insolence, Ps. 89:11(88:10); and rum, 
Job 38:15; Ps. 18(17):27; Isa. 2:12. It is without Heb. equivalent at Wis. 14:6; 
Sir. 3:28; 11:30; 13:20; 21:4; 23:8; 25:2; 27:15, 28; 32(35):12; 51:10; Zeph. 
3:6; Isa. 1:25; 2 Macc. 9:12; 3 Macc. 1:27; 5:13; 6:4; 4 Macc. 4:15; 9:30. 


The adv. hyperéphanos (1 Macc. 8:34, 47; 2 Macc. 9:4, 12) has no Heb. 

alazoneia has no Heb. equivalent (Wis. 5:8; 17:7; 2 Macc. 9:8; 15:6; 4 Macc. 
1:26; 2:15; 8:19). alazoneuomai stands for hadar, dignify oneself, at Prov. 25:6; 
but has no equivalent at Wis. 2:16. alazon stands for Sahas, pride, Job 28:8; yahir, 
presumptuous, haughty, Hab. 2:5; the Heb. is uncertain at Prov. 21:24. 

The fact that hybris and hyperéphaneia are used virtually as synonyms suggests 
that the LXX translators saw no fundamental distinction between them. 

In the Wisdom literature the hyperéphanoi form a distinct group, contrasted with 
the righteous and the humble (~ Righteousness; — Humility) within but also 
outside Israel. hyperéphanos is never used of Israel. Behind this lies the fundamental 
conviction that “‘God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble” (Prov. 3:34 
LXX). Just as the —> fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, departure from the 
Lord is the beginning of pride (Sir. 10:12). Therefore, the one who prays cleanses 
himself from the suspicion of pride (Est. 4:17 LX X) and indicates his own lowliness 
in expectation of God’s help (Jud. 6: 19). The prophetic message, on the other hand, 
accuses Israel himself of pride (e.g. Amos 6:8; 8:7; Hos. 5:5; 7:10; Jer. 13:9; 
Ezek. 7:10, 20; 16:56; Zeph. 2:10; cf. Lev. 26:19) and thus takes up a position in 
the sharpest opposition to deeply ingrained conceptions. There is no negative 
implication in the use of alaz6n in Job 28:8; hyperéphanos in Est. 4:17; and hybris 
in Job 37:4. 

NT 1. hyperéphania occurs only in Mk. 7:22 and hyperéphanos in Lk. 1:51; Rom. 
1:30; 2 Tim. 3:2; Jas.4:6 (quoting Prov. 3:34); 1 Pet. 5:5 (also quoting 
Prov. 3:34). 

The context of Lk. 1:51 is poetic. It occurs in the Magnificat (Lk. 1:46-55): 
‘He has shown strength with his arm, he has scattered the proud [hyperéphanous| 
in the imagination of their hearts.’’ The verse appears to echo Ps. 89:10: ‘“Thou 
didst crush Rahab like a carcass, thou didst scatter thy enemies with thy mighty 
arm” (where the LXX has hyperéphanon [88:11]). The Magnificat takes its name 
from the Lat. vb. with which this psalm opens which in EVV is translated by 
‘magnifies’. E. E. Ellis comments: “‘A lyrical poem modelled upon Old Testament 
(and Qumran?) psalms, it has special affinity with the Song of Hannah (1 Sam. 
2.1—-10; cf. Lk. 1.38; P. Winter, B/RL, 37, 1954, 328-47). It expresses Mary’s joyous 
gratitude for her personal blessing (46-48), God’s graciousness to all who reverence 
him (49-50), his special love for the lowly (51-53) and for Israel (54 f.). The last 
half of the poem describes God’s victory in terms of a national deliverance from 
human oppression. This is a recurrent note in pre-Christian messianism. The New 
Testament writers do not deny it, but they redefine it and transfer it to Messiah’s 
parousia” (The Gospel of Luke, New Century Bible, 1966, 72). On the psalm see 
further R. Laurentin, Structure et Théologie de Luc I-IT, 19644. 

The remaining instances occur mainly in contexts which have a paraenetic 
function. They are strung together in so-called catalogues of vices which were used 
in early Christian catechesis. The sole instance of hyperéphania occurs in the things 
which Jesus declares to come from the — heart which must be dealt with at that 
level and cannot be cured by mere external ablutions: “‘For from within, out of the 
heart of man, come evil thoughts, fornication, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, 



wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil 
things come from within, and they defile a man” (Mk. 7:21 ff.). H. Anderson is 
representative of a cross-section of form-critical approach when he writes: “‘The 
list is without parallel in the teaching of Jesus. Similar catalogues occur in the 
Manual of Discipline from Qumran (1QS 4:9-11) and in Rom. 1:29-31; Gal. 
5: 19-23 (cf. | Tim. 1:9-10; 2 Tim. 3:2-5); they betray the influence of Hellenism 
and are characteristic of the Hellenistic world generally” (The Gospel of Mark, 
New Century Bible, 1976, 188). On the other hand, the concept of Hellenism as 
distinct from Palestinian Judaism is not as clear cut as was widely believed until 
recently. Whilst lists of virtues and vices were popular among the Stoics, they are 
also found in intertestamental literature (cf. Wis. 14:25 f.; Gr.Bar. 4:17; 8:5; 
13:4; Test.Reub. 3:3-6; Test.Jud. 16:1; Sl.Enoch. 10:4 f.). And the existence of a 
parallel from Qumran confirms that such a list was not entirely foreign to Jewish 
soil. It is possible that Jesus himself was making use of an existing Jewish 
catechetical list in his debate with the — Pharisees over washing in order to show 
that merely external ritual cannot deal with man’s deepest problems (— Baptism; 
—> Hand). Christian catechesis continued the tradition of OT — wisdom, stringing 
together almost proverbial sayings which were otherwise loosely connected. (For 
further lists see Rom. 1:29 ff.; 13:13; 1 Cor. 5:10 f.; 6:9 f.; 2 Cor. 12:20; Gal. 
5:19 ff.; Eph. 4:31; 5:3 ff.; Col. 3:5, 8; 1 Tim. 1:9 f.; 2 Tim. 3:2-5; Tit. 3:3; 
1 Pet. 4:3.) Prov. 3:34 is cited twice in paraenetical passages in the NT exhorting 
— humility: “But he gives more grace; therefore it says, ‘God opposes the proud 
[hyperéphanois|, but gives grace to the humble’ ” (Jas. 4:6); ‘“‘Likewise you that 
are younger be subject to the elders. Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility 
toward one another, for ‘God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble’ ”’ 
(1 Pet. 5:5; cf. Num. 15:30 LXX). The former passage is concerned with worldli- 
ness; the latter with relationships within the church in the wider context of living 
in the end times. | 

In Rom. 1:30 the word occurs in a catalogue of the vices which Paul sees as the 
outcome of idolatry which is itself an expression of God’s judgment. ‘‘They were 
filled with all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, 
murder, strife, deceit, malignity, they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, 
insolent [hybristas], haughty [hypereéphanous], boastful [alazonas], inventors of evil, 
disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless” (Rom. 1:29 ff.; — 
hybris, NT 2). In 2 Tim. 3:2 it occurs in a list describing the characteristics of godless 
men in the last days: “For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud 
[alazones|, arrogant [hyperéphanoi], abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrate- 
ful, unholy.”’ Timothy is urged to ‘“‘Avoid such people”’ (2 Tim. 3:5). 

2. Jas. 4:16 takes up the thought of Jas. 4:6 (noted above): ‘‘As it is, you boast 
in your arrogance [en tais alazoneiais hymon]. All such boasting is evil.’’ The plur. 
here may suggest the numerous instances of confidence in one’s cleverness, luck, 
strength, or skill which may have brought material advantage (cf. J. B. Mayor, 
The Epistle of St. James, 1897", 75,.147). The context deals with laying plans for 
material gain without regard to God. Jas. counters this with a twofold remedy: 
“Instead you ought to say, ‘If the Lord wills, we shall live and we shall do this or 
that’. . ... Whoever knows what is right to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin” 
(Jas. 4:15, 17). The only other instance of the abstract noun is in | Jn. 2:16: “For 



all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes [hé epithymia tés 
sarkos kai hé epithymia t6n opthalmon] and the pride of life [hé alazoneia tou biou], is 
not of the Father but is of the world.”’ The contrast with — desire of the flesh and 
of the eyes suggests that “‘the pride of life’? means lust for advantage and status. 
The threefold use of terms is not so much a classification of kinds of evil that stem 
from the world, i.e. fallen humanity. It aims, rather, to lay bare the world’s charac- 
teristically self-centred, grasping structure, which can only be overcome by love: 
“Do not love the world or the things of the world. If any one loves the world, 
love for the Father is not in him” (1 Jn. 2:15). 

The noun alazon occurs twice. It occurs in the catalogues in Rom. 1:30 and 2 
Tim. 3:2, both of which passages include hyperéphanos (see above, 1). “‘alazén 
denotes the man who tries to impress others by making big claims. It was used of 
the braggart, the charlatan, the quack, the impostor. The word is probably used 
here with the graver end of its range of meaning in mind. We may think of the 
“frantic boast and foolish word’ of the heathen heart, the sort of thing which is 
reflected in Isa. 10.7-11, im fact all the presumptuous claims and ostentatious 
behaviour of men by which they seek to impress one another, and very often delude 
themselves” (C. E. B. Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, I, ICC, 1975, 132). 
—> Boast, — Height, — Humility, — Virtue E. Giting, C. Brown 

(a). K. Barth, CD, IV, 1, 413-78; G. Bertram, Aybris etc., TDNT VIII 295-307; hyperéphanos etc. 
TDNT VIII 525-29; W. D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism: Some Rabbinic Elements in Pauline 
Theology, 19557, 111-46; and ‘‘Paul and the Dead Sea Scrolls: Flesh and Spirit’, in K. Stendahl, 
ed., The Scrolls and the New Testament, 1957, 157-82 (reprinted in Christian Origins and Judaism, 
1962, 145-78); E. R. Dodds, The Greeks and the Irrational, 1, 1951, 28-63; B. S. Easton, ‘“New 
Testament Ethical Lists’, JBL 51, 1932, 1-12; D. Grene, Man in his Pride: A Study in the Political 
Philosophy of Thucydides and Plato, 1950; S. Ranulf, The Jealousy of the Gods and Criminal Law 
at Athens, I-Il, 1934; H. G. Robertson, ‘‘Diké and Hybris in Aeschylus’ Suppliants’’, Classical 
Review 50, 1936, 104-9; O. J. F. Seitz, ‘“‘Lists, Ethical’’, 7DB III 137 ff.; P. Tillich, Systematic 
Theology, Il, 1957, 56-59; J. A. Wharton, ‘‘Pride’’, 7DB III 876. | 

(b). G. Bertram, ‘‘Hochmut und verwandte Begriffe im griechischen und hebraischen Alten 
Testament”, Welt des Orients 3, 1964, 29-38; J. J. Fraenkel, Hybris, 1942; E. Kamlah, Die Form 
der katalogischen Pardnese im Neuen Testament, 1964; M.-J. Lagrange, ‘“‘Le Catalogue de Vices 
dans l’Epitre aux Romains, 1.28-31, RB 8, 1911, 534-49; A. Végtle, Die Tugend- und Laster- 
kataloge im Neuen Testament, 1936; F. R. Walton, ‘“‘Hybris’, RGG? III 497 f.; S. Wibbing, Die 
Tugend- und Lasterkataloge im Neuen Testament, BZNW 25, 1959. 

Priest, High Priest 

_itepeic i iepevd¢ (hiereus), a priest; apylepevd¢ (archiereus), high 
priest; apyilepatixdc (archieratikos), high-priestly; 
igpwovvy (hierdsyné), priestly office, priesthood; iepateia (hierateia), priestly 
office; 7g patevua (hierateuma), priesthood; iepatetw (hierateud), hold the office or 
perform the service of a priest; iepovpyém (hierourged), perform holy service, act 

as a priest with regard to something. 

CL hiereus, a priest, and archiereus, high priest, like the nouns hierdsyné, priesthood, 
priestly rank, hierateia, priestly office, priestly attendance, and hierateuma, 
priesthood, are all formed from the adj. hieros, holy. The meaning of the words in 
the Gk.-speaking world is dealt with under — holy, art. hieros, CL. 
It may, however, be added that, according to the Stoic Zeno (Stob., Ec/. 2, 67, 



20) the priest, “‘versed in the sacrificial ordinances’’, 1n chastity and in godliness, 
must be ‘“‘within divine nature’’, i.e. in concord and harmony with — nature here 
viewed as divine. For the Stoics “‘the wise man alone”’ is therefore a priest (cf. 
Origen, Commentary on Jn. 1:4: Diog. Laert., 8, 119). The wise man is also the 
just diviner (Stob., Ecl. 2, 114, 16). 

OT 1. The Priesthood in Israel. The LXX uses hiereus to trans. Heb. kdhén, priest, 

cognate with Arab. kahin, seer, soothsayer. The view that one takes of the 
development of the priesthood in the OT depends considerably upon the view that 
one takes of the dating of the various books and sources behind them. The following 
reconstruction represents a cross-section of scholarly opinion. 

(a) The task of the priest in Israel was originally not sacrificial service, but ora- 
cular divination (cf. Jdg. 17:5; 18:5 f.; 1 Sam. 14:36—42) and instruction in the 
Torah (Deut. 27:9 f.; 31:4 ff.). The head of every family could offer — sacrifice 
(cf. Gen. 8:20; 31:54). Moses’ father-in-law, Jethro the priest of Midian (Exod. 
2:18 ff.; 3:1), offered burnt-offerings and sacrifices at Sinai. He held a fellowship- 
meal with the elders of Israel and advised Moses in the regulations of sacral law 
(Exod. 18:12 ff.). | 

(b) The levitical order probably goes back to a priestly clan based on Kadesh 
with which again Moses was closely related (cf. Arab. /away, to give an oracle). 
However, not every Levite was also a priest (Jdg. 19:1). The formula “the priests, 
the Levites’” (e.g. Deut. 17:8) is first found in the Deuteronomic scheme. The 
Levites were in a particularly close relationship to Yahweh (Deut. 10:9; Jdg. 17:13), 
and claimed that they alone were called to the true priesthood (Exod. 32:25 ff.; 
Deut. 33:8 ff.; against this, polemically, Gen. 49:5 ff.). In point of law they stood 
close to aliens in possessing no land (Deut. 10:9; Jdg. 17:7; 19:1), but belonged to 
the tribal system, whose traditions of sacral law they cared for (Deut. 27: 14-26; 
31:24 ff.; 33:10). They claimed — Moses for themselves, declaring him to be a 
Levite (Exod. 2:1 f.). It is a different matter with Aaron. In Num. 12:11 f. he 
appears as an intercessor; in Exod. 17:8 ff. as a rival of Moses when giving the 
blessing; and in Exod. 32:1 ff. as a priest of the idolatrous calf. If one links this 
with 1 Ki. 12:28 ff., Aaron was probably the eponymous ancestor of the priest- 
hood at the sanctuary of Bethel in the northern kingdom; they defended their 
legitimacy against levitical criticism by declaring Aaron a Levite (Exod. 4: 13-16). 
But — further Levite. 

(c) In the pre-monarchic period priests are found only in connexion with a 
sanctuary, e.g. the shrine of the Ephraimite Micah (Jdg. 17); this man’s priest was a 
Levite who was carried off to Dan together with his cultic image (Jdg. 18). The 
priesthood of Dan is legitimized in Jdg. 18:30 by being traced back to Moses. At 
the sanctuary of the ark in Shiloh, Eli’s family carried out the priestly duties, which 
consisted of the offering of sacrifices and burnt-offerings and of oracular prophecy 
(1 Sam. 1:3; 2:27 f.). After the decline of Eli’s family at Shiloh members of the 
family are mentioned at Nob (1 Sam. 21:27; 22:9-23). 

(d) The flourishing temple cult of the monarchy gave rise to organized priest- 
hoods (1 Ki. 4:2 ff.; 12:26 ff.), which quickly gained recognition over against the 
local sanctuaries, since the monarchy and the court-priesthood entered into firm 
political alliances (2 Ki. 10:11, 19 ff.; 11:1-12). The priestly upper-classes which 



were formed in this way were deported by the conquerors of both northern and 
southern kingdoms (2 Ki. 17:27 f.; 25:18). Josiah’s reform (begun c. 622-1 B.c.) 
centralized the Yahweh-cult in the Jerusalem temple and lowered the rank of the 
priests of the local sanctuaries to that of clerus minor (2 Ki. 23: 5-9). The levitically- 
influenced Deuteronomic literature now succeeded in demanding levitical origin 
for priestly office (cf. Deut. 17:18). 

(e) In exilic times priestly law was codified. Since not all Levites could be priests, 
“priests and Levites’’ were constructed as two divisions of the tribe of Levi, which 
now became the priestly tribe pure and simple (Num. 18: 1-7). Aaron became the 
“‘priest’’, and the priesthood belonged as of right to Aaron’s descendants (Exod. 
29:29 f.). Finally, according to Ezek. 44:15, the Zadokites put forward their claim 
to the high priestly offices. They derived their origin from Zadok, the pre-Davidic 
priest of Jerusalem, who was traced back through the family of Eli at Nob to that 
of Eli at Shiloh (2 Sam. 8:17; 1 Chr. 24:3). 

(f) The post-exilic reconstruction demanded Zadokite origin for the chief 
priests, Aaronic descent for the ordinary priests and levitical parentage for the 
temple servants (1 Chr. 24). Since, as well as the sacrificial service, there now came 
in the care of the law of Yahweh, ordained by Ezra (Neh. 8), a body of experts 
in the scriptures grew up, which soon overshadowed the priesthood. This is 
reflected in Aboth 6:6: “‘Greater is [learning in] the law than priesthood and 
kingship’’; B. Sanh. 59a: “‘A non-Jew who concerns himself with the Torah is as 
a high priest” (— Israel, oT; Scripture). 

(g) At the time of Jesus a social gap divided the chief priests from the ordinary 
priests. The latter formed twenty-four divisions of service in four to nine family- 
groups (1 Chr. 24; Josephus, Ant. 7, 365; cf. Lk. 1:5, 8). The divisions performed 
their service in the — temple in turn, a week at a time. For the rest of the time the 
priests carried out a profession in the surrounding land. In addition they could 
pass expert judgment on questions of ritual purity (Lev. 11-15) and often under- 
took the reading and exposition of the Torah in the worship of the synagogue. 
Priestly rank was hereditary. Strict regulations concerning purity and marriage 
were enforced for them (Lev. 21). The Levites were divided into temple musicians 
and temple servants (1 Chr. 6: 16-33) and similarly formed twenty-four divisions 
of service. They had no access to the altar (Num. 18:3). According to Jos. 21, they 
lived in levitical cities. 

(h) In the Qumran community the Zadokite priesthood, deprived of its powers 
by the Hasmonaeans, constituted itself as the priestly salvation-community of the 
last days (1QS 5:2, 9; 1QSa1:2, 24; 1QSb 3:22; CD 3:21). Its founder, the 
“Teacher of Righteousness”, was a priest of Zadok’s line (4QpPs 37 2:16). Its 
opponent, the ‘““Wicked Priest’? (1QpHab 8:8), is probably to be identified with the 
high priest Jonathan (152-143 B.c.). The priests took precedence in the com- 
munity: ‘“Wherever there are ten men of the Council of the Community there shall 
not lack a priest among them” (1QS 6:3; cf. 2:19 f.; also 1QM, especially 7:10- 
9:9; 17; and 18). The chief priest of the last days is ranked above the messiah 
(1QSa 2:11-21; cf. also 1QpHab. 2:8 f.; 9:9 ff.; 1QS 4:11; 1QM 2:1; 7:12; 15:4). 
The purificatory prescriptions for priests were applied to all members of the com- 
munity. Both the language and the conceptual world of the community breathe a 
priestly air throughout. 



(i) Philo saw in the priest the symbol of the Logos (Abr. 198; Cher. 16 f.), and, 
when psychologizing, equated him with the conscience (Deus Imm. 131 ff.) or with 
the divine power of the soul in the reason of man (Som. 1, 215). Stoic influence 
betrays itself. The Levites are the picture of the true priesthood in renouncing the 
passions and in turning to the true Logos (Ebr. 76; Fug. 109). Everyone who no 
longer walks in the way of sin belongs to the priestly family (Spec.Leg. 1, 243). 

2. The High Priest. archiereus occurs only 5 times in the canonical books of the 
LXX, but 41 times in the Apocrypha. The LXX translates the MT hakkéhen 
haggado6l, the great priest, or kohén haro’s, the chief priest, literally, or by simple 
hiereus. : | 

(a) The post-exilic (life-long) office of high priest, which was traced back to 
Aaron, was until 172 B.c. in the possession of the Zadokites. Since the nation 
lacked an independent political head, political powers also devolved upon him. 
Out of this arose tensions, e.g., between the High Priest Eliashib and Nehemiah 
(Neh. 13:4-9:28), and tendencies towards Hellenistic customs (2 Macc. 4: 12-15). 
Power struggles for the high-priestly office gave the Seleucid Antiochus IV (Epi- 
phanes) several opportunities from 175 B.c. onwards for filling the position and 
intervening in the Yahweh cult. It was against this that the Maccabean uprising 
was directed. The son of the last legitimate high priest went to Egypt in 169 B.c. 
and founded a temple in Leontopolis which survived until A.D. 73. In Jerusalem 
the Hasmonean Jonathan (a member of an ordinary priestly family) usurped the 
high-priestly office in 152 B.c. (1 Macc. 10:20 f.). The Hasmoneans held it against 
the protests of the Pharisees until 37 B.c. Then Herod and, following him, the 
Romans arbitrarily installed and deposed twenty-eight high priests (of which 
twenty-five came from non-legitimate families) up till A.D. 67. Powerful families 
(Boethus, Hannas, Phabi, Kamithos) knew how to secure their high-priestly 
position by bribery. The last high priest before the destruction in A.D. 70 was once 
again a Zadokite. (See further Schiirer, II, 1, 195-206.) 

(b) At the time of Jesus the high priest was the highest representative of the 
people. Through his investiture with the magnificent eight-part vestments (Exod. 
28) he received permanent sanctity (cf. Acts 23:4 f.). Every one of his robes carried 
atoning power for particular sins. The death of the high priest released the 
murderers in the cities of refuge (Num. 35). The high priest could take over the 
offering of the sacrifice at any time; he had the first choice of the parts of the sacri- 
fice, the leadership of the priesthood and the chief seat in the Sanhedrin (— Council). 
His greatest task was the absolution of the community on the Day of Atonement 
(Lev. 16; Mishnah Yoma). The prescriptions for the purity and marriage of the 
high priest were especially strict (Lev. 21:10 ff.). The plural denotes the holders 
of the high-priestly offices: the chief temple office, the heads of the weekly and 
daily divisions, the temple keepers and treasurers. 

(c) The high esteem of the high-priestly office led to a widespread Jewish expec- 
tation of an eschatological priest or high priest alongside the kingly messiah (Test. 
Reub. 6:8; Test.Lev. 18:2; Test.Jud. 21:2; 24:1; 1QS89:10 f.; 1QSa 2:12 ff.; 1QSb 
4:23; 4QpPs 37 2:15; CD 12:23 f.). This was joined with angel speculations (Test. 
Dan 6:2, Eth.Enoch 89:76; Sl.Enoch 22:4 ff.; Hag. 12b, where Michael offers a 
spiritual sacrifice), and the myth of the primeval man. Adam (Gen. R. 20; Num. 
R. 4), Enoch, or Metatron (Jub. 4:25, Heb.Enoch 48C, 7; 48D, 1; Sl.Enoch 



64:5A) and — Melchizedek all appear as incarnations of the primeval man or 
primeval priest. 

(d) Philo’s idea of the high priest is a unique synthesis of these motifs. Moses is, 
as high priest (Rer. Div. Her. 182) and chief head of the people, the first Logos of all, 
who stands on the border-line between creation and Creator (Rer. Div. Her. 205 f.), 
since he is no longer man, but divine Logos (Fug. 108). Everyone who lives accord- 
ing to the law is, according to Wis. 18:20 ff., a high-priestly Logos (Spec.Leg. 2, 
164). As Logos, the high priest holds sway in the temple of the cosmos of which his 
vestments are an image. He himself becomes a ‘“‘cosmos in miniature’’ (Som. 1, 
214 f.; Spec.Leg. 1, 82-97; Vit.Mos. 2, 109-135). 

3. Melchizedek (MT malki-sedeq), who in Gen. 14:18 and Ps. 110(109):4 is 
called king of Salem and priest of ’él-‘ely6n (LXX ‘“‘the Most High God’’), is 
according to Josephus (War 6, 438; Ant. 1, 180 f.), the founder and first priest of — 
Jerusalem. The Melchizedek-fragment of Sl.Enoch ascribes to him an eternal 
priesthood in — paradise and titles such as “‘the great High Priest’’, “the Word of 
God’’, “‘the miraculous Power’’, holding sway as High Priest at the centre of the 
earth. For Philo, Melchizedek is “‘self-taught in knowledge of God’’ (Congr. 99) 
and image of “‘the reason of the King” and of the “Priest-Logos’’, who transports 
the soul aloft as in ecstasy to the vision of God (Leg.All. 3:79 ff.). Rabbinic 
literature sought to play down Melchizedek (frequently called Shem; cf. SB III 
692 f.) as against Abraham. Because Melchizedek in Gen. 14:18 mentions Abra- 
ham’s name before God’s name, God removes the priesthood from him in Ps. 
110:4 and hands it over to Abraham (Lev. R. 25; Ned. 32b). This was possibly 
anti-Christian polemic. An eschatological kéhén-sedeq repeatedly stands alongside 
the messiah (Cant. R. on 2:13; Sukkah 52b; Ab.R.N. 34). Hippolytus (Haer. 7:36; 
10:24) and Epiphanius (Haer. 55) report of a probably gnostic group of “‘Melchi- 
zedekians”” who worshipped Melchizedek as a higher Logos than Jesus. 

4. hierdsyné, only in 1 Chr. 29:22 in the LXX (for Zadok’s priesthood), but 
several times in the Apocrypha (e.g. Sir. 45:24; 1 Macc. 2:54) goes back to the 
basic meaning of priestly office. Josephus (Ap. 1, 31) and Philo (Zor. 65; 126) both 
testify to its high esteem. Josephus himself possesses the hierdsyné (Ant. 16, 187; 

Life 198). 

5. hierateia is chiefly used for k*°hunnah (priesthood) in the LXX (Exod. 29: 2: 
40:15; Num. 3:10; 18:1, 7; 25:13; Jos. 18:7; 1 Sam. 2:36; 2 Esd. 2:62; Neh. 
7:46; 13:29). It stands for kahan (Hos. 3:4) and "epod (Exod. 35:9; 39: 19). It 
denotes in Num. 3:10 and 18:1 the priestly service, but more frequently simply 
the priestly office. By their investiture and anointing (Exod. 29:9 and 40:15) in 
accord with divine instruction (Num. 25:13; Neh. 13:29; Sir. 45:8), Aaron’s 
descendants have an eternal hierateia, which, according to Test.Jud. 21:2, 4, 1s 
more than kingship. Josephus and Philo do not use the word. 

6. Exod. 19:6 speaks of Israel as a mamleket koh*nim ‘‘a kingdom of priests’. 
This may be taken as ‘“‘a kingdom [consisting] of priests’, i.e. the heads of the 
families. But J. P. Hyatt takes it to mean that “‘the Israelites were all to have access 
to Yahweh, and the nation was to serve as priest for the rest of the nations of the 
world” (Exodus, New Century Bible, 1971, 200). A similar view is taken by B. S. 
Childs who insists that the term is to be understood in conjunction with the concept 
of “‘a special possession from all the peoples’’ and “‘a holy nation” (Exodus, 1974, 



367). The LXX translates the phrase by basileion hierateuma, “‘kingly priesthood’, 
and thus lays the stress on the priestly aspect. Israel is called from amongst the 
nations to priestly service for God (cf. Isa. 61:6). The idea also appears in Exod. 
23:22 LXX, but this is probably an interpolation, as there is no Heb. equivalent. 
The Peshitta, Syro—-Hexaplar, Targum Onkelos and Targum Jerusalem II split 
up the MT in Exod. 19:6 into “kingship and priesthood’’. 2 Macc. 2:17, Jub. 16:18; 
Test. Lev. Gk. Fragment 67 and Philo (Abr. 56; Sobr. 66) deal similarly with the 
LXX text and understand kingship and priesthood as distinguishing marks of Israel. 

NT 1. In the NT hiereus refers mainly to the levitical priests; in Heb. also to Christ 
and in Rev. to Christians. The word occurs 31 times, of which 14 are in Heb., 
3 in Matt., 2 in Mk., 5 in Lk., 1 in Jn., 3 in Acts, and 3 in Rev. 

(a) According to the evidence of the Gospels, Jesus had strikingly few dealings 
with the priesthood. When he sent healed lepers to the priests for confirmation of 
their healing (Matt. 8:4 par. Mk. 1:14, Lk. 5:14; Lk. 17:14), he was respecting 
their authority and acting in accordance with the law (cf. Lev. 13:49; 14:2 f.). 
It was also a challenge to recognize Jesus’ authority. The healing of the — Samari- 
tan leper (who would not normally have gone to the Jewish priest) brings into sharp 
focus the question of Jesus’ authority and the status of the Jews and Samaritans. 
Lk. 10:31 is reminiscent of the prophetic critique of a merely external cult (but 
see further J. D. M. Derrett, ‘““The Parable of the Good Samaritan’’, in Law in the 
New Testament, 1970, 208-27). In Matt. 12: 1-8 par. Mk. 2:23—28, Lk. 6: 1-5, Jesus 
declared his eschatological freedom over against cultic precepts. In the light of 
Lev. 24:9; Num. 28:9 f.; Deut. 23:25; 1 Sam. 21:1-6 and Hos. 6:6, not only: is 
plucking grain on the sabbath permitted, but Jesus as the Son of man is Lord of the 
sabbath. Only in Lk. 1:5, 8 and Acts 6:7 are priests found in a positive relationship 
to the salvation event. In the figure of Zechariah the priesthood is taken into the 
service of the immediate preparations for salvation, and seen to be dependent on 
faith. Lk. 1:8 provides the sole NT instance of hierateud which is found in late 
Gk. including Josephus, Ant. 3, 189; 15, 253; 1 Clem. 43:4. The addition of a large 
number of priests from the lower classes to the Jerusalem congregation (Acts 6:7) 
does not appear incredible, in view of the social contrast with the priestly aristo- 

(b) In Rev. 1:6 and 5:10 (cf. 20:6) Christians are called ‘‘kings and priests” 
and thus picked out from humanity for the service of God. The promise of Exod. 
19:6 is thus fulfilled, but the new order no longer knows any — temple since God 
himself is now the temple (Rev. 21:22; cf. also 20:6). 

(c) The thought of Exod. 19:6 is also taken up in 1 Pet. 2:9 “But you are a 
chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people, that you may 
declare the wonderful deeds of him who called you out of darkness into his mar- 
vellous light’? (cf. Exod. 23:22 LXX). This concept of priesthood embraces the 
idea of access to God in intimate knowledge and the prophetic rdle of priesthood 
in proclaiming the knowledge of God. It complements the earlier idea of offering 
spiritual sacrifices: ‘‘and like living stones be yourselves built into a spiritual house, 
to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus 
Christ” (1 Pet. 2:5). In both cases the priesthood of all believers is seen to super- 
sede that of the Jewish priesthood. And this is, in fact, the concept of Exod. 



19:6. In addition to this, E. Best draws attention to other terms from the levitical 
cultus which are appropriated for Christian activity: “‘sprinkled’’ and ‘‘washed”’ 
come from the ritual consecration of priests (Heb. 10:22; cf. Exod. 29:21; Lev. 
8:6, 30; > Baptism); “firstborn” recalls the Levites as the first born of Israel 
(Heb. 12:23; — First, art. prototokos); in Heb. 13:10 Christians have an “‘altar’’ 
(cf. J Peter, New Century Bible, 1971, 103; and E. Best, “Spiritual Sacrifice: General 
Priesthood in the New Testament’, Interpretation 14, 1960, 280-90; J. H. Elliott, 
The Elect and the Holy, Supplements to NovT 12, 1966, 50-128). 

(d) In Rom. 15:16 Paul describes his gracious calling “‘to be a minister [/eitourgon] 
of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service of the gospel of God [hierour- 
gounta to euangelion tou theou], so that the offering of the Gentiles [hé prosphora 

ton ethnon] may be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.’’ The context suggests 

that Rom. itself is a summary of this priestly ministry (cf. Rom. 15:15). In the 
light of Rom. 15:8 f., 13, D. W. B. Robinson writes: ‘‘Romans is both an exposi- 
tion of the gospel of hope and at the same time Paul’s apologia for his ‘priesthood’ 
in that gospel’’ (““The Priesthood of Paul in the Gospel of Hope’, in R. Banks, ed., 
Reconciliation and Hope: New Testament Essays on Atonement and Eschatology 
presented to L. L. Morris, 1974, 232). On this verse see also C. Wiéner, “‘ Hierourgein 
(Rom. 15.16)”, Stud. Paulin.Congressus, IT, 1961, 1963, 399-404. The theme of Rom. 
is God’s saving purposes for both the Jewish nation and the Gentiles. The 
concern to show that the ground of salvation has always been grace received by 
faith (chs. 1-7) demonstrates that Jew and Gentile are on the same footing with 
regard to salvation. Chs. 9-11 consider God’s purposes for the Jewish nation. The 
thought of the self-offering of the individual’s life (Rom. 12:1) is paralleled by that 
of the Gentiles. Just as the OT priest presented the sacrifice to Yahweh, so Paul, 
as the apostle to the Gentiles (cf. Rom. 1:5; Gal. 2:8 f.; Acts 9:15; 22:21; 26:17 f.), 
is the one who has the special task of bringing them to God. This offering which 
would otherwise be unclean is made acceptable by the sanctifying work of the 
Holy Spirit (cf. Rom. 15:16 with 8:2-27). In the background of Paul’s thought 
may be Isa. 66:20 where the Jews of the Diaspora are an offering (MT minhaéh; LXX 
doron) which the Gentiles will bring to Jerusalem (SB III 153). Here, however, 
the rdles are reversed. In Phil. 2:17 the rdles are again reversed. Paul is in prison 
and awaiting possible execution (cf. Phil. 1:12 ff.; 17-26) and can envisage his own 
death as an offering for the sake of the church: ‘“‘Even if I am to be poured out as a 
libation upon the sacrificial offering of your faith, I am glad and rejoice with you 
all.” ; 

(e) Although the words priest and high priest do not occur in it, Jesus’ prayer in 
Jn. 17 is sometimes referred to as Jesus’ high priestly prayer. The chapter repre- 
sents Jesus’ prayer for his people prior to his arrest and execution. Discussions 
include O. Michel, ‘“‘Das Gebet des scheidenden Erlésers’’, ZSTh 18, 1941, 521-34; 
and E. Kasemann, The Testament of Jesus: A Study of the Gospel of John in the 
Light of Chapter 17, 1968. In Jn. 17:19 Jesus says: “‘And for their sake I consecrate 
myself, that they also may be consecrated in truth.”’ The vb. hagiazo which is used 
here is also used for the sanctifying of priests (e.g. Exod. 28:41; 29:1, 21) and of 
sacrifices (e.g. Exod. 28:38; Num. 18:9) (— Holy, art. hagios). The act of conse- 
cration through death for the sake of the people may reflect the Day of Atonement 
ritual carried out by the high priest (Lev. 16). 



2. archiereus occurs only in the Gospels (Matt. 25 times, Mt. 22 times, Lk. 15 
times, Jn. 22 times), Acts (22 times) and Heb. (17 times). In the Gospels and Acts 
it refers to the high priests chiefly in opposition to Jesus; in Heb. it has a christo- 
logical and soteriological significance in that Jesus is depicted as the true high 

(a) In the Gospels and Acts the high priest is mentioned as the president of the 
Sanhedrin in the trials of Jesus and his followers (e.g. Matt. 26:62 par. Mk. 14:60; 
Acts 5:21, 27; 23:1 ff.; — Council). The frequent plurals (denoting the holders of 
the higher priestly offices) stand similarly in these contexts (e.g. Matt. 21:45 f. par. 
Lk. 20:19; Matt. 26:3 par. 14:1, Lk. 22:2; Jn. 12:10; 19:6, 15; Acts 5:24; 25:2). 
The priestly aristocracy thus appears as a closed group who staged persecutions 
and condemnations. Their combined act with the “elders” (—> Bishop, art. presby- 
teros, NT 2 (a)) and the — “‘scribes”’ is interpreted as being ordained by God (Matt. 
16:21 par. Mk. 8:31, Lk.9:22; Matt. 20:18 par. Mk. 10:33, Lk. 18:31; > 
Necessity, art. dei). Looking at it historically, it may well have been primarily 
the cleansing of the temple by Jesus (Mk. 11:18 par. Lk. 19:47; cf. Matt. 21:12 f.; 
Jn. 2:13-17) as an attack on the carefully preserved temple administration of the 
chief priests, which was the decisive factor in their hostility against him. Perhaps 
their arrangement with the occupying power also aroused their fears that the 
Romans might take measures against Jesus and his followers on their own account 
(Jn. 11:48). The remark in Jn. 11:51 that Caiaphas, in his office of high priest, 
prophesied Jesus’ death recalls the rabbinic accounts of heavenly voices and 
visions which various high priests are supposed to have received while sacrificing 
on the Day of Atonement (Sotah 33a; Yoma 53b). On the other hand, 1QpHab. 
10:9 suggests that the prophetic gift of the high priest was disputed at Qumran. 
Josephus also said that John Hyrcanus was credited with having prophetic powers 
(Ant. 13, 299; cf. 11, 327). He even claimed a measure of prophetic foresight him- 
self in view of his priestly descent, although his main emphasis fell on knowledge 
of prophetical books (War 3, 352). There was a Jewish belief that prophecy was 
often unconscious (SB II 546). Jn.’s observation is an ironical comment on what to 
Caiaphas was sheer political realism: “ “You know nothing at all; you do not under- 
stand that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that 
the whole nation should not perish.’ He did not say this of his own accord, but 
being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation, and 
not for the nation only, but to gather into one the children of God who are scattered 
abroad. So from that day on they took counsel how to put him to death”’ (Jn. 
11:49b-53). In Jn. the concern of the chief priests and Pharisees was occasioned 
by the signs of Jesus (the most recent being the raising of Lazarus) and Jesus’ 
popularity: “If we let him go on thus, every one will believe in him, and the 
Romans will come and destroy both our holy place and our nation” (11:48). 

Caiaphas is mentioned in the NT at Matt. 26:3, 57; Lk. 3:2; Jn. 11:49; 18:13 f., 
24, 28; Acts 4:6. Josephus (Ant. 18, 35; 18, 95) says that he was made high priest 
by the Procurator Valerius Gratus (A.D. 18) and was deposed by the Procurator 
Vitellius (A.D. 36). His successor was “‘Jonathan the son of Ananus”’ who is com- 
monly identified with the Annas of the NT. According to Jn. 18:13, he was the 
son-in-law of Annas who had been deposed as high priest in A.D. 15 by Valerius 
Gratus. Lk. dates the public ministry of John the Baptist “‘in the high-priesthood 



[epi archiereds| of Annas and Caiaphas” (Lk. 3:2). Whereas some scholars see 
this as a mistake, others see this as a reflection of the real situation. As head of a 
powerful family, Annas continued to exert considerable influence which is evi- 
denced by the fact that he procured appointment to the office for five of his sons. 
This may be the explanation of the fact that he is named as high priest in Acts 
4:6. Annas is also mentioned in Jn. 18:3, 24. (For further discussion see S. Sandmel 
““Caiaphas’, JDB JI 481f.; D. E. Hiebert, ZPEB I 683 ff.) The late Gk. adj. 
archieratikos is used in the NT only at Acts 4:6 when “‘Annas the high priest and 
Caiaphas and John and Alexander, and all who were of the high-priestly family 
[ek genous archieratikou|’” were gathered to deal with Peter and John. Schirer 
suggests that the term high priest embraced not only present and former ones but 
also members of the privileged families from which the high priests were taken 
(Schiirer, II, 1, 203-6). 

Acts 22:30-23:10 depicts Paul’s interrogation before the Sanhedrin at which the 
high priest Ananias commanded that Paul should be struck on the mouth. ““Then 
Paul said to him, ‘God shall strike you, you white-washed wall! Are you sitting to 
judge me according to the law, and yet contrary to the law you order me to be 
struck ?’ Those who stood by said, ‘Would you revile God’s high priest?’ And Paul 
said, ‘I did not know, brethren, that he was the high priest; for it is written, ““You 
shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people” ’ ” (Acts 23:3 ff.; cf. Exod. 22:28). 
On Paul’s remark — Black, White, Red, art. /eukos. His failure to recognize the 
high priest has been ascribed to failing eyesight (on Paul’s thorn in the flesh — 
Fruit, art. skolops), a change of high priest since Paul’s last visit to Jerusalem, or 
irony (i.e. that one who spoke like that could not possibly be the high priest). 
However, the latter seems incompatible with the allusion to Exod. 22:28. The 
interrogation broke up in disorder when Paul played off the Pharisees and Sad- 
ducees against each other. Ananias appeared in person to support the renewed 
charges before Felix at Caesarea five days later (Acts 24:1). Ananias was ap- 
pointed high priest by Herod, king of Chalcis in a.D. 48 (Josephus, Ant. 20, 103). 
He was sent to Rome in A.D. 52 by Quadratus, legate of Syria, to answer charges of 
cruelty, but was acquitted by Claudius through the efforts of Agrippa the younger 
(Ant. 20, 131 ff.).An unscrupulous man (Ant. 20, 205 ff.), he was a typical powerful 
Sadducee. Because of his collaboration with the Romans he was hated by the na- 
tionalists, and was murdered at the outbreak of the Jewish war in A.D. 66 (War 2, 

(b) Whilst high priestly functions are attributed to Christ in the NT outside 
Hebrews, such as intercession (Jn. 17:19; Rom. 8:34; 1 Jn. 2:1), and the opening 
of the way of access to God (Rom. 5:2; Eph. 2:18; 1 Pet. 3:18), only Hebrews 
offers a fully developed high-priestly christology. The writer interprets the suffering 
and the present work of Christ as a high-priestly service. Alongside the title 
archiereus, Christ also, on the basis of Ps. 109:4 (LXX), bears the title hiereus. But 
the interest is really focused on the high-priestly rank of Christ. The writer had 
probably already found this high-priestly title of Christ in confession-like liturgical 
tradition (Heb. 3:1). His scheme of thought appears to be influenced, not only 
by the Jewish expectation of the priest of the last days, but also by the motif of 
heavenly intercession (taken from angel speculations; cf. 1:5-14), and possibly 
elements of the gnostic myth of the primeval man: Acquaintance with these ideas 



could have been mediated through the Alexandrian-Jewish doctrine of the Logos. 
The thought of the high-priestly self-sacrifice is nevertheless new (even Sifre Num. 
131 does not speak of a cultic self-sacrifice of the high priest). The writer develops 
his interpretation of the priesthood of Christ as the antitype of the levitical priest- 
hood, and does so in respect of structure, scriptural basis, bearer, service, place and 

(i) Structure. Every high priesthood, as representative of men before God (Heb. 
5:1), must be founded, on the one side, on its solidarity with men in their suscep- 
tibility to sin (Heb. 5:2), and on the other side, on divine calling (Heb. 5:4). Of the 
duties of the high priest Heb. is interested only in the sacrificial service (Heb. 5:1; 
8:3), and primarily in his double service on the Day of Atonement (Heb. 2:17; cf. 
Lev. 16) — the slaughter of the sacrificial animal (Heb. 9:22) and his entry with the 
sacrificial blood into the most holy place (Heb. 9:7). The goal of the high priestly 
service is to render possible access to God by blotting out the guilt of their sins 
(Heb. 4:16; 7:18 f., 25; 10:1, 19, 22). 

(ii) Scriptural basis. The fact and significance of the priesthood of Christ are 
grounded on Ps. 110:4 (cf. Heb. 5:6) and Gen. 14:17 ff. (Heb. 7:1 ff.). Follow- 
ing an exegetical tradition of Hellenistic Judaism, Heb. is not interested in the 
historical figure of —-~ Melchizedek, but in the OT picture of his priesthood. It is 
not tied to any descent and is therefore eternal (Heb. 7:3) and superior to the 
levitical priesthood, since Melchizedek blessed Abraham, the ancestor of the 
Levites, and received a tithe from him (Heb. 7:5 ff.). All this is a prefiguration of 
the priesthood of the Son addressed in Ps. 110 (Heb. 7:3). It is grounded moreover 
on a divine oath (cf. the exegesis of the divine oath in Philo, Leg. Al. 3, 203 ff. and 
elsewhere), whereas the levitical hierdsyné, the setting-up of this priesthood, rests 
on legal ordinance (Heb. 7:11, 20 f.). The “‘fleshly”’ law (Heb. 7:16), however, can 
only install men in their weakness as high priests (Heb. 7:23, 28). God’s oath, by 
contrast, in which resides the “power of an indestructible life’? (Heb. 7:16), 
entrusts to Jesus the Son of God, who has overcome all weakness, an unalterable 
hierosyné (Heb. 5:7 ff.; 7:24, 28). 

(iii) The bearer. The weakness of the ievitienl priesthood lies in its sinfulness 
(Heb. 5:3; 7:27). Although Jesus became like men in every respect (Heb. 2:17), 
he did not sin (Heb. 4:15; 9:14); and only such a high priest can act for us (Heb. 
7:26), for he alone can atone. Behind this depreciation of the levitical high priest- 
hood stands not so much the experience of its ethical decline in NT times as the 
dualistic moral doctrine of Hellenistic Judaism, and also the impression of the 
life of Jesus. . 

(iv) Service. The levitical priestly service is inadequate, since for an atoning 
sacrifice it must have recourse to animal — blood. This only effects an external 
‘‘fleshly”’ purification, not the eradication of the guilt of sin from the conscience 
(Heb. 9:13 f.). On the contrary, it is only the necessity of continually renewed 
sacrifices which actuates a consciousness of sin (Heb. 10:1 ff.). But Christ, through 
his self-sacrifice, has effected once for all the liberation of the conscience from all 
sin (Heb. 9:14, 26) and thus opened the way to God (Heb. 10:19 ff.). Here Heb. 
takes up motifs of the prophetic critique of sacrifice, clothed in Hellenistic thought- 
forms (Heb. 10:5 ff.). 

(v) Place. The levitical priestly service is imperfect, because its nature is earthly 



and it takes place in an earthly sanctuary (Heb. 9:1). According to Exod. 25:40, 
it is the shadowy replica of the heavenly sanctuary in which Christ officiates as high 
_ priest (Heb. 8:2, 5; 9:11, 24). Heb. understands “‘earthly”’ and ‘“‘heavenly”’ not so 
much apocalyptically and cosmologically as dualistically, comparable with the 
Platonic doctrine of Being. The heavenly sanctuary is perfect, ‘“‘true’’, because it is 
“not of this creation’’ (Heb. 8:2; 9:11). To that extent not only Christ’s entrance 
into heaven, but also the death he suffered on earth is essentially “heavenly” high- 
priestly service. The question of the commencement of his high-priesthood receives 
its answer from this point. He is a high priest for ever, but is first proclaimed as 
such on the basis of his sacrificial death (Heb. 5:10). 

(vi) Time. The words — “‘covenant’”’ and — “‘promise” (Heb. 8:6 ff.; 10:16 f.) 
bring a historical moment into the dualism of the earthly levitical high priesthood 
and the heavenly high priesthood of Christ. The latter sets the former aside (Heb. 
7:18 f.). Moreover, the unique self-sacrifice of Christ the high priest marks the 
arrival of the end (already prophesied in the OT) of the cult as an atoning institu- 
tion (Heb. 10:5 ff., 18). The new cult of Christians knows only the sacrifice of 
praise: confession and service (Heb. 13:15 f.). 

(c) By way of summary, it must be stressed that the hishoniesty christology of 
Heb. does not serve speculative but paraenetical interests. Heb. is directed to 
Christians who are tempted by the hiddenness of salvation in Christ, as against the 
very palpable salvation presented and represented in the cults of the surrounding 
world. Heb. wants to encourage them to hold fast to their confession by giving a 
new interpretation, both of Jesus’ historical work and his present significance by 
means of the already previously handed down high-priestly title of Christ. Thus 
Jesus’ death on the cross represents the high-priestly self-sacrifice of the eternal 
Son of God, surpassing all other sacrifices and valid once and for all. His exaltation 
is interpreted as the entrance of the perfect high priest into the heavenly and true 
sanctuary, and as his continual intercession for believers. Christ, therefore, as the 
eternal and heavenly high priest, now gives to those who hold firm to their con- 
fession of him a present guarantee of immediate access to God, and a future guaran- 
tee of entrance into the lasting heavenly world. Heb. thus represents salvation in 
Jesus Christ as the fulfilment of every cultic intention and so as the end of every 
cult (as a human endeavour of relationship with God), and exhibits this by using 
the methods of Hel. s¢riptural exegesis on the example of the OT cult. Alongside 
Paul, who proclaims Christ as the end of the law, then, comes an independent 
sketch of early Christian preaching of Christ as the end of the cult. J. Baehr 
_— Bishop, — Council, — Levite, —~ Melchizedek, —> Moses, — Prophet, — 
Sacrifice, — Temple 

(a). G. C. Aalders, “Priests and Levites’’, A Short Introduction to the Pentateuch, 1949, 66-71; 
R. Abba, ‘Priests and Levites’’, DB III 876-89; G. Allon, ‘“‘On the History of the High-Priesthood 
at the Close of the Second Temple’, Tarbiz 13, 1941, 1-24; W. Arndt, ‘“‘A Royal Priesthood”’, 
Concordia Theological Monthly 19, 1948, 241-49; N. B. Barrow, The High Priest, 1947; J. R. 
Bartlett, ““Zadok and his Successors at Jerusalem’’, JTS New Series 19, 1968, 1-18; E. Best, 
‘Spiritual Sacrifice: General Priesthood in the New Testament’’, Interpretation 14, 1960, 280-90; 
F. F. Bruce, The Teacher of Righteousness in the Qumran Texts, 1957; and The Epistle to the 
Hebrews, NLC, 1964; D. R. Catchpole, The Trial of Jesus: A Study in the Gospels and Jewish His- 
toriography from 1770 to the Present Day, Studia Post-Biblica 18, 1971; R. E. Clements, God and 
Temple: The Idea of the Divine Presence in Ancient Israel, 1965; A. Cody, A History of Old Testa- 



ment Priesthood, Analecta Biblica 35, 1969; O. Cullmann, The Christology of the New Testament, 
1963%, 83-107; A. Ehrhardt, ‘Jewish and Christian Ordination’, The Framework of the New 
Testament Stories, 1964, 132-50; C. Eastwood, The Priesthood of All Believers, 1969; and The 
Royal Priesthood of the Faithful, 1963; A. Edersheim, ‘““The Officiating Priesthood’’, The Temple, 
Its Ministry and Services, 1874, 58-78; J. H. Elliott, The Elect and the Holy, Supplements to NovT 
12, 1966, 50-128; J. A. Emerton, ‘‘Priests and Levites in Deuteronomy”, VT 12, 1962, 128-38; 
G. D. Fee, ‘‘Priest in the New Testament’’, ZPEBIV 849-52; C. L. Feinberg, ‘“‘Priests and Levites’’, 
ZPEB IV 852-67; G. Fohrer, History of Israelite Religion, 1973; B. Gartner, The Temple and the 
Community in Qumran and the New Testament: A Comparative Study in the Temple Symbolism of 
the Qumran Texts and the New Testament, Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 1, 
1965; F. Hahn, The Titles of Jesus in Christology: Their History in Early Christianity, 1969; M. 
Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in their Encounter in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic 
Period, \-II, 1974; D. A. Hubbard, ‘‘Priests and Levites”, NBD 1028-43; E. O. James, The 
Nature and Function of Priesthood: A Comparative and Anthropological Study, 1961; J. Jeremias, 
Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus, 1969, 147-221; A. R. Johnson, The Cultic Prophet in Ancient Israel, 
1944; H.-J. Kraus, Worship in Israel: A Cultic History of the Old Testament, 1966; G. van der Leeuw, 
Religion in its Essence and Manifestation, 19647; R. N. Longenecker, The Christology of Early 
Jewish Christianity, SBT Second Series 17, 1970; T. W. Manson, Ministry and Priesthood: Christ’s 
and Ours, 1959; B. A. Mastin, ““Scaeva the Chief Priest’’, JTS New Series 27, 1976, 405-12; H. W. 
Montefiore, The Epistle to the Hebrews, BNTC 1964; M. Noth, ‘‘Office and Vocation in the Old 
Testament’, in The Laws in the Pentateuch and Other Studies, 1966, 229-49; J. Pedersen, Israel: 
Its Life and Culture, IJJ-IV, 1940, 150-97; C. Rabin, The Zadokite Documents, 19587; G. von Rad, 
Old Testament Theology, I, 1962; II, 1965; H. Ringgren, Israelite Religion, 1966; D. W. B. Robin- 
son, ““The Priesthood of Paulin the Gospel of Hope’’, in R. J. Banks, ed., Reconciliation and Hope: 
New Testament Essays on Atonement and Eschatology Presented to L. L. Morris, 1974, 231-45; 
H. W. Robinson, “Revelation through the Priest”, Inspiration and Revelation in the Old Testa- 
ment, 1946, 199-230; H. H. Rowley, The Zadokite Fragments and the Dead Sea Scrolls, 1952; and 
Worship in Ancient Israel: Its Forms and Meaning, 1967; H. H. Rowley, ed., The Old Testament 
and Modern Study: A Generation of Discovery and Research, 1951; K. H. A. Schelkle, A Priestly 
People, 1965; G. Schrenk, hieros etc., TDNT III 221-83; Schitirer, II, 1, 195-298; W. M. F. Scott, 
‘*Priesthood in the New Testament’’, SJT 10, 1957, 399-415; M. H. Shepherd, Jr., ‘‘Priests in the 
NT”, IDB III 889 ff. ; J. Smith, A Priest for Ever: A Study of Typology and Eschatology in Hebrews, 
1969; N. H. Snaith, ‘““The Priesthood and the Temple’’, in T. W. Manson, ed., 4 Companion to 
the Bible, 1939, 418-33; R. A. Stewart, ““The Sinless High-Priest’’, N7iS 14, 1967-68, 126-35; 
A. Stéger, ‘‘Priest(hood)’’, EBT II 700-9; S. van Tilborg, The Jewish Leaders in Matthew, 1972; 
R. de Vaux, Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions, 1961, 345-405; G. Vos, “‘The Priesthood of 
Christ in the Epistle to the Hebrews”, Princeton Theological Review, 5, 1907, 423-47, 579-604; 
A. C. Welch, ‘“‘The Priesthood’’, and ‘‘The Priests and the Levites’’, Post-Exilic Judaism, 1935, 
172-84, 217-41; and Prophet and Priest in Old Israel, 1936; J. Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the 
History of Ancient Israel, (1878) 1957; Y. Yadin, ‘““The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Epistle to the 
Hebrews’, Scripta Hierosolymitana 4, 1957, 36-55. 
(b). W. W. von Baudissin, Die Geschichte des alttestamentlichen Priestertums, 1889; E. Bammel, 
“archiereus prophéteuon”, TLZ 79, 1954, 308 ff.; J. Begrich, “Das priestliche Heilsorakel”, ZAW 
52, 1934, 81 ff. (reprinted in Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament, ThB 21, 1964); and ‘“‘Die 
priesterliche Tora’ in Werden und Wesen des Alten Testaments, 1936, 63-88; J. Blinzler, ““HIERA- 
TEUMA. Zur Exegese von I Petr. 2, 5 u. 9”, Faulhaber Festschrift, 1949, 49-65; H. Bolewski, 
Christos Archiereus, Dissertation, 1939; G. Bornkamm, ‘‘Das Bekenntnis im Hebrderbrief”’, 
ThBI 21, 1942, 56 ff. (reprinted in Studien zu Antike und Christentum, 19637, 188 ff.); P. Dabin, 
Le Sacerdoce Royal des Fidéles dans les Livres Saints, 1941; M. Dibelius, ‘“‘Der himmlische Kultus 
nach dem Hebrderbrief”’, ThB/ 21, 1942, 1 ff.; G. Friedrich, ‘‘Beobachtungen zur messianischen 
Hohepriestererwartungen in den Synoptikern’”’, ZTK 53, 1956, 265 ff.; J. Gabriel, Untersuchungen 
liber das alttestamentliche Hohepriestertum, 1933; L. Gautier, “Prétre ou Sacrificateur?”’, in 
Etudes sur la Religion d’Israél, 1927, 247-76; J. Gnilka, ““Die Erwartung des messianischen 
Hohenpriesters in den Schriften von Qumran und im Neuen Testament’, Revue de Qumran 2, 
1960, 395 ff. ; J. Goettsberger, ““Das alttestamentliche Hohepriestertum und Ezechiel’’, in Episcopus 
(Faulhaber Festschrift), 1969, 1-18; E. Grasser, Der Glaube im Hebrderbrief, 1965; A. H. J. 
Gunneweg, Leviten und Priester. Hauptlinien der Traditionsbildung und Geschichte des israelitisch- 
jtidischen Kultpersonals, FRLANT 89, 1965; F. Hesse, “Priester, Priestertum’’, EKL III 322 ff.; G. 


Holscher, “‘Levi’’, Pauly-Wissowa, XII, 2, 2155-208; A. van Hoonacker, Le Sacerdoce Lévitique 
dans la Loi et dans I’ Histoire des Hébreux, 1899; P. Honigsheim, K. Koch, B. Lohse, R. Prenter, 
““Priestertum”, RGG*® V 569-82; E. Kasemann, Das wandernde Gottesvolk, FRLANT 37, 1961; 
P. Ketter, ‘‘Das allgemeine Priestertum der Glaubigen nach dem 1. Petrusbrief”’, Trierer Theo- 
logische Zeitschrift 56, 1947, 43-51; F. Kuhler, “Das priesterliche Orakel in Israel und Juda’’, in 
Abhandlungen zur semitischen Religionskunde und Sprachwissenschaft (Baudissin Festschrift), 1918, 
285-301; E. Lohse, Die Ordination im Spdatjudentum und im Neuen Testament, 1951; O. Michel, 
Der Brief an die Hebrdaer, KEK 13, 196612; O. Moe, “Das Priestertum Christi im Neuen Testa- 
ment ausserhalb des Hebrderbriefs”, TLZ 72, 1947, 335 ff.; S. Mowinckel, Religion und Kultus, 
1953; S. Nomoto, “‘Herkunft und Struktur der Hohepriestervorstellung im Hebraerbrief”’, NovT 
10, 1968, 10 ff.; A. Oepke, Das neue Gottesvolk, 1950; W. Pesch, ‘‘Zu Texten des Neuen Testa- 
ments tiber das Priestertum der Getauften’’, in O. BOcher and K. Haacker, eds., Verborum Caritas. 
Festschrift fiir Gustav Stahlin, 1970, 303-15; O. Ploger, ‘“‘Priester und Prophet’, ZAW 63, 1951, 
157 ff.; E. Riggenbach Der Brief an die Hebrder, 1922; K. Romaniuk, Le Sacerdoce dans le Nouveau 
Testament, 1966; F. J. Schierse, Verheissung und Heilsvollendung, 1955; G. Schille, ““Erwagungen 
zur Hohenpriesterlehre des Hebrderbriefs’’, ZNW 46, 1955, 81 ff.; E. Schiirer, ‘‘Die archiereis 
im Neuen Testament”, ThStKr 44, 1872, 593-657; C. Spicq, L’Epitre aux Hébreux, \-II, 1952- 
53; and La Spiritualité sacerdotale d’aprés Saint Paul, 1954; A. Stoger, ‘‘Der Hohepriester Jesus 
Christus’, Theologisch-Praktische Quartalschrift 100, 1952, 309-19; F. Stummer, ‘‘Gedanken iiber 
die Stellung des Hohenpriesters in der alttestamentlichen Gemeinde”, Episcopus (Faulhaber 
Festschrift), 1949, 19-48; A. Vanhoye, “‘Le Christ, Grand-prétre selon Heb. 2, 17-18”, Nouvelle 
Revue Théologique 91, 1969, 449-74; A. Wendel, ‘“‘Hohepriester’’, RGG?® 427 f.; H. Wenschkewitz, 
“Die Spiritualisierung der Kultusbegriffe: Tempel, Priester und Opfer im Neuen Testament’’, 
Angelos. Archiv fiir neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte und Kulturkunde 4, 1932, 70-230; C. Wiéner, 
“‘ Hierourgein (Rom. 15.16)”, Stud. Paulin. Congressus, II, 1961, 1963, 399-404; H. Windisch, Der 
Hebrderbrief, HNT 14, 19317; H. Wuttke, Melchisedek, der Priesterkénig von Salem, BZNW 5S, 

Proclamation, Preach, Kerygma 

There are a number of different words in Gk. for the passing on of messages, 
reports and instructions. Leaving aside the groups of words dealt with under — 
Teach (didasko and katécheo for the communication of material to be learned, and 
paradidomi for the passing on of tradition); gndrizo, to make known, which is 
dealt with under — Knowledge; and also the verbs mentioned under — Confess 
and — Witness; the principal words which are dealt with below are angellé and 
kéryss6 and their derivatives. The NT uses the whole range of this vocabulary, 
partly because of the variety of the forms of communication which it mentions, 
and partly in the simple interchange of practically synonymous expressions. Of 
the two groups of words dealt with under this heading, that connected with angellé 
has more of the character of an offer of information or encouragement, while 
kéryss6 indicates a public and authoritative announcement which demands 
compliance. See also — Gospel. 

[ayo | ayyéAA@ (angello), announce; ayyedia (angelia), message; 
avayyédAw@ (anangello) and azayyéAA@ (apangello), 
report, announce, proclaim; diayyéAAw (diangellé), make known, proclaim (far 
and wide); é€ayyéAA@ (exangellé), proclaim, report; xatayyéAA@ (katangello), 

proclaim; Katayyedst¢ (katangeleus), proclaimer; zpoxatayyéAAw (prokatan- 
gello), announce, proclaim beforehand, foretell. 



CL The vbs. of this group are largely interchangeable. They are to be found in their 

principal sense, to bring tidings, notify, proclaim publicly, in some cases as early 
as Homer. angelos, messenger (— Angel), is even attested in Mycenaean Gk. In 
Koine, as opposed to classical, Gk. the compounds are preferred: e.g. an- and 
apangellé take the place of the classical ange/llod. Nuances of meaning can of course 
be distinguished in the various compounds: apangello is a more official word than 
anangello. On the other hand, both words can be watered down to mean simply 
relate, speak. di-, ex- and katangello, often indicate the elevated, ceremonious style 
of proclamation. exangellé, however, emphasises rather the unknown or secret 
nature of what is being told, sometimes even in the sense of gossip; while katangell6 
can, among other things, mean to make a claim concerning oneself. The noun 
angelia can mean either message or command. The one who conveys the message 
is the katangeleus, herald. 

1. In their basic meaning these words always refer to the activity of the messenger 
who conveys a message which has been given to him either orally or in writing 
(Xen., Anab. 1, 3, 21), and who in this way represents the sender of the message 
himself. The content of the message may vary very considerably. It may be private 
family news (Soph., Ajax 1355), reporting good or evil fortune. Such news may 
especially concern political events: war (Plato, Phaedrus 262b), victory or defeat 
of an army (Plato, Politicus 1, 15, 11), the solemn proclamation of a ruler (cf. 
Xen., Anab. 2, 3, 19), the accession of an emperor. Good news (angelia agathé) is 
also called euangelion (— Gospel). 

2. Just as the messenger who brings the news stands under the special protection 
of the gods (— Angel), so too his message can acquire a sacred significance. This is, 
of course, true particularly where it is associated with the cultic veneration of rulers 
and gods: e.g. where the messenger solemnly proclaims the successful completion 
of a sacrifice which brings blessing, or the approach of a ceremonial procession. 
He proclaims the manifestation of a god, the reign of a new god-king, or an- 
nounces the mighty deeds of his god or emperor. 

oT In the LXX angellé appears 5 times and means to announce. an- and apangello 

by contrast occur frequently, chiefly to render the Heb. nagad (hiph. or hoph.), 
in the sense of to report, announce (e.g. Gen. 9:22; 37:5; 2 Sam. 15:13), to 
proclaim (Pss. 19[18]:2; 51:15[50:17]), to speak out openly (e.g. Gen. 12:18; | 
Sam. 9:19), to direct or instruct (Deut. 24:8). di-, ex- and katangellé are seldom 
found in the LXX; proangellé and katangeleus do not appear at all. 

The message of the OT and of rabbinic Judaism makes it quite clear that where 
the lordship of the divine Ruler is proclaimed, and his mighty deeds made known, 
no room is left for proclaiming the lordship of other gods. We ought therefore to 
ask whether the special meaning attached to these terms in the NT is not derived 
from OT and rabbinic usage. The might of God the Lord is declared to all the 
world (Exod. 9:16; Ps. 64[63]:9), his righteousness (Ps. 22[21]:30 f.), his faithful- 
ness (Ps. 30[29]:9), his wondrous deeds (Ps. 71:[70]:17), his steadfast love (Ps. 
92:2 [91:3]). He himself, the Lord, proclaims what is to come: “‘Behold, the former 
things have come to pass, and new things I now declare; before they spring forth 
I tell you of them” (Isa. 42:9; cf. 46:10). This is something idols cannot do (Isa. 
44:7 ff.). It is above all the — prophets, the chosen messengers, who make known 



the saving acts of God among his people and in all the earth (Isa. 12:5), who 
proclaim his will (Mic. 6:8) and announce what is to come. The latter idea, the 
announcement of eschatological events, is one that comes strongly into focus in 
intertestamental writings (cf. the Lat. adnuntiare of 2 Esd. Vulg.) One or two texts 
indicate that the prophets of the OT were even called angeloi (— Angel), angels 
(Hag. 1:13; Mal. 3:1; Moses in Ass. Mos. 11:17 as the magnus nuntius). They 
make use of the same forms of expression as messengers in the surrounding world 
of the OT (e.g. the priests of Mari). Thus there is theological content in these 
expressions wherever in the LXX proclamation or announcement takes place at 
the behest of Yahweh or in the knowledge of his acts of salvation. 

NT 1. In the NT angellé and angelia are only found twice each, and in each case 

in the Johannine writings (Jn. 4:51 v./.; 20:18; 1 Jn. 1:5; 3:11). More fre- 
quently we find compounds with the same meaning: anangello (13 times, 5 of which 
are Johannine and 5 in Acts); apangello (46 times, 27 of these in Luke/Acts); and 
katangello (18 times, of which 11 are in Acts and 7 in Paul). The other derivatives, 
as in classical Gk., are only found occasionally in the NT: prokatangellé (Acts 
3:18); 7:52); diangelld (Lk. 9:60; Acts 21:26; Rom. 9:17); exangellé (1 Pet. 2:9) 
and katangeleus (Acts 17:18). 

Statistical analysis shows that of the 88 occurrences, 48 are to be found in the 
Lucan writings, and 12 each in the Johannine literature and Paul. 

As in classical usage, an- and apangellé can lose their full meaning and signify 
simply relate or speak (cf. e.g. Matt. 2:8; 28:11; Lk. 8:20; Acts 16:38). On the 
other hand, it is not always quite clear whether the etymological sense has been 
totally disregarded, e.g. in the typical ending of miracle stories (““. . . and told 
[apéngeilan] it in the city and in the country”, Mk. 5:14). 

2. Usually the words of this group mean proclamation in a special, technical 
sense: the making known of God’s activity, his will to save. This proclamation, 
the authority of which is derived from its ultimate source, enters deeply into the 
life of the messenger and makes total demands upon him. When used in this way, 
these terms can scarcely be distinguished in meaning from that word which is so 
central to the NT, ewangelizomai, proclaim (good news) (—> Gospel). Thus, for 
example, 1 Jn. 1:5: “And this is the message [angelia] which we have heard from 
him and proclaim [anangellomen] to you, that God is light and in him is no darkness 
at all’; Lk. 9:60: ‘“‘Leave the dead to bury their dead; but as for you, go and 
proclaim [diangelle] the kingdom of God.” 

_ (a) It is noticeable, however, that John uses the words of this group exclusively 
in a theologically pregnant sense, whereas euangelizomai and — kérysso, a term 
frequently used in the Synoptic Gospels, Acts and Paul, do not appear in his 
writings at all. G. Friedrich is of the opinion that John has consciously avoided 
both expressions, because in contrast to an- and apangellé they emphasize strongly 
the dramatic, dynamic proclamation of the age of salvation, the heralding of a 
coming event, an idea which does not fit into John’s realized eschatology (TDNT II 
717; cf. III 703). John therefore prefers martyred, to bear witness: what has already 
happened, and been seen or experienced, is the subject of — witness. If this is 
correct, it explains the peculiar nuance which, for instance, anangellé has in the 
Fourth Gospel: ““when he [Messiah] comes, he will show [anangelei] us all things” 



(Jn. 4:25); “and he [the Paraclete] will declare [anangelei] to you the things that 
are to come”’ (16:13; —> Advocate); ‘“‘he will take what is mine and declare [anan- 
gelei] it to you”’ (16: 14). In these passages it is not so much a matter of a proclama- 
tion which will bring about its own fulfilment in the shape of an event, nor the 
announcement and heralding of a new age which is already dawning in the hidden 
messiah, as the revealing, the reporting of that ‘“‘which was from the beginning”’ 
(1 Jn. 1:1). The believer may go forward with confidence into the darkness of the 
future, because the full truth of the word will one day be revealed to him by the 
Spirit. Similarly, in Jn. 16:25 apangelo (“I will tell you plainly’’) brings no new 
subject into view, ““Rather, what was once said will become clear in the eschatolo- 
gical existence, for which it was spoken from the beginning” (R. Bultmann, The 
Gospel of John, 1971, 587). 

The difference between this and the dynamic, dramatic announcement of the 
new age, which is conveyed by kéryssé and euangelizomai, is again made very 
clear in 1 Jn. 1:2 f.: “‘[we] proclaim [apangellomen] to you the eternal life which 
was with the Father and was made manifest to us — that which we have seen and 
heard we proclaim [apangellomen] to you, that you may have fellowship with us.”’ 
That which has been heard is being said anew, not in order to say something new, 
but in order to make effective what has been heard. God is light (1 Jn. 1:5), and 
therefore the believer is not to walk in darkness (cf. 1:7); to be in the light means 
to be walking in love. “‘He who loves his brother abides in the light” (2:10). The 
content of the proclamation is both information, or “reminding” of the saving 
event, and commandment. angelia can be thus rendered as message (so RSV) or 
command in | Jn. 1:5: ““This is the message [or “‘ccommand’’, angelia] we have 
heard from him and proclaim [anangellomen] to you, that God is light and in him 
is no darkness at all’’; and 1 Jn. 3:11: ‘‘For this is the message [or ““command”’, 
angelia| which you have heard from the beginning, that we should love one another.” 

(b) Luke and Paul use the words in a variety of senses ranging from the simple, 
somewhat watered down sense of give notice (Acts 21:26, diangello), inform 
(2 Cor. 7:7, anangellé), and the more theologically significant give a report (e.g. 
Acts 14:27; 15:4), to the special meaning of command (Acts 17:30), confess 
(1 Cor. 14:25), proclaim, declare (e.g. Acts 4:2; 13:5; 26:20; cf. also 1 Pet. 2:9), 
and finally to the solemn, liturgical type of proclamation which results from the 
sacred celebration of the — Lord’s Supper. “‘For as often as you eat this bread and 
drink this cup, you proclaim [katangellete] the Lord’s death until he comes’”’ 
(1 Cor: 11:26). The proclaiming here has been taken to refer to the symbolic action 
of the breaking of the bread (cf. Augustine, In Ioannis Evangelium Tractatus 80, 3) 
and the pouring out of the wine, but it probably also includes the recital of the 
passion narrative in the same way as the story of the exodus was recalled at the 
celebration of the Passover (cf. C. K. Barrett, 4 Commentary on the First Epistle 
to the Corinthians, BNTC, 1968, 270). The number of different words used in 
translation demonstrates that the words of our group do not acquire any technical 
application to a particular form of proclamation. Luke and Paul are, however, in 
contrast to John, dealing with the proclamation of a completed event or the 
announcement of a particular one in the future. The subject of the proclamation 1s 
new to the hearers (Acts 4:2; 16:17; 1 Cor. 9:14) and becomes operative by being 
proclaimed (Acts 13:38; 1 Cor. 2:1). If it is at all possible to draw a distinction 



between this and euangelizomai, it is perhaps that the latter lays the emphasis more 
upon the eu, 1.e. the good, on the God-sent intervention of something joyous into 
the human scene. 

(c) The message of Christ is the message of the Risen One. apangellé becomes, 
in the resurrection narratives of all four Gospels, a technical term for witness to the 
resurrection (Matt. 28:8, 10 f.; Mk. 16:10, 13; Lk. 24:9; Jn. 20:18 angelld). The 
term is here used in its original sense: a messenger (— Angel) conveys the news, 
which he has received directly beforehand from the sender of the message (the 
Risen One, Matt. 28:10; Jn. 20:18; angels, Lk. 24:6 ff.). It is no coincidence that 
Luke uses the same word in his account of the Transfiguration (9:36): the disciples 
do not pass on to anybody the message that they have seen Jesus transfigured, i.e. 
in his resurrection body. 

(d) Jesus is proclaimed as the one in whom the prophetic promises (cf. prokat- 
and katangello in Acts 3:18, 24) have found fulfilment. Paul opened the Scriptures 
to them and explained “‘that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise 
again from the dead, ... saying “This Jesus, whom I proclaim to you, is the 
Christ’ ’’ (Acts 17:3). It is not surprising, then, that the commission to proclaim is 
itself backed by a variety of OT quotations (e.g. Rom. 9:17, cf. Exod. 9:16; Rom. 
15:21, cf. Isa. 52:15). In the two places where the quotation does not agree with 
the LXX, Matt. 12:18 ff. (Isa. 42:1-4) and Heb. 2:12 (Ps. 22:22), it is Jesus 
himself who is the messenger of God. Schniewind conjectures “‘the influence of 
Palestinian tradition, i.e. that the Messiah will be the prophet of Dt. 18:15, 18 
and the euangelizomenos of Is. 52:7; cf. Jn. 4:25 anangelei, Hb. 3:1 apostolos’’ 
(J. Schniewind, 7 DNT I 67). 

(ce) Just as the use of these terms varies widely, so does the content of the proc- 
lamation differ from case to case. Sometimes the reference is to everyday informa- 
tion, sometimes to repentance (— Conversion, art. metanoia), — faith — forgive- 
ness of sins, to the totality of the Christian message (— Word), or to other things. 

U. Becker, D. Miller 

Ky pvacw (kerysso), announce, make known, proclaim 
(aloud); x#pvg (keryx), herald; xypvyya (kérygma) 
proclamation, announcement, preaching, kerygma. 

cL 1. The words of this group derive from the noun kéryx, frequent in Homer; cf. 
Old High German (h)ruod, fame; Old Indian kdruh, singer; Old Persian xraus 
(whence Aram. karéz, Dan. 3:4; see oT 2). kéryx denotes the man who is com- 
missioned by his ruler or the state to call out with a clear voice some item of news 
and so to make it known. Subsequently the vb. kéryss6 (first attested Homer, J/. 2, 
438) was formed from the noun to describe the activity of the herald, but it is 
much less common than the noun. By the addition of -ma to the stem keryk- the 
noun kérygma was later formed (attested in Xen. and Eur.), which is used, like 
other words of the same form, to describe either the phenomenon of kéryssein, 
i.e. the ring of the herald’s voice, the act of crying aloud (e.g. Xen., Ages. 1, 33), or, on 
the other hand, the content of the proclamation thus made, the announcement, 
edict (Hdt. 3, 52; Aristotle, Oeconomica 2, p. 1349b 36). This content may be 
anything from a mere report (Eur. /ph. Taur. 239) to an authoritative command 
(Aristotle, Ath. Pol. 4, 19). 


ky pvaow@ 


2. The precise meaning of the terms depends upon the function of the kéryx 
in the historical period in question (cf. on this the very detailed and widely docu- 
mented account of G. Friedrich, TDNT III 683-94). 

(a) In Homer (e.g. J/. 3, 118, 248; 7, 276) kéryx is used of the attendants of a 
prince who perform duties which are in keeping with the rédle of senior court 
officials, whose task is to care for the personal well-being of the prince and of his 
guests (like cupbearer, adjutant, steward, e.g. Od. 1, 143 ff.). They are, however, 
raised above the status of the rest of the retinue by the respect accorded to them, 
and by a status similar to that of friends (Od. 19, 247; hetairos, companion, friend; 
—> Brother). The herald’s staff, a kind of sceptre, in their hands (//. 18, 505; Od. 2, 
38) makes it clear, as they carry out their commission (to inform or invite), that 
they are authorized by the prince. 

(b) In the period of the polis, the democratic city-state (— People), the institu- 
tion was maintained, though it seems at first to have been lessened in signi- 
ficance by the multiplication of types of herald. The particular function of a herald 
was indicated by the addition of a qualifying adj. or noun in the genitive (thus, 
there were heralds of the city, of the archons, of the council, of the court, and even 
of the mysteries and of the gods). Despite the fact that it was sometimes difficult 
to find free men to do this job, and that some of them appear to have been dis- 
paragingly spoken of, the really important fact is the rdle in society which the her- 
alds played. Formally they were servants (we would say messengers, or spokesmen) 
of certain authorities (Plato, Politicus 290b), whose chief qualification for office 
was a loud and clear voice; but it was the heralds also who called the soldiers to 
battle (Homer, J/. 2, 51, 437 ff.) and the full citizens to the assembly (cf. — Church, 
art. ekklésia CL). They were responsible for good order in the assembly, and opened 
it with prayers and sacrifices and announced its end (cf. Aristophanes, Thesmo- 
Phoriazusae 295 ff.; Acharnenses 45, 173). In public court hearings heralds announ- 
ced the result of the drawing of lots for the judges, called on the judges to cast their 
votes, and beforehand asked the people whether anyone had objections to raise 
about the procedure of the statements of the witnesses. Thus they were, so to speak, 
responsible for the maintenance of the laws, and so for political and religious 
order generally. Their sacred, indeed sacrosanct position (Homer calls them 
angeloi Dios, Il. 1,334 and angeloi theioi, divine messengers, J//. 10, 315), is even 
more evident from the fact that when the kéryx appeared, weapons were stilled, 
e.g. when heralds from one city invite all Greece to a festival in honour of the 
gods (Soph., Aj. 1240), and in the course of it they were responsible for the 
religious opening and the proclamation of victors and prizes. The herald who came 
to the enemy with a message in time of war must not be touched, since that would 
be to incur the wrath not only of the one who sent him, but also that of the gods, 
since it would be a gross asebeia, i.e. transgression of the religious and moral order 
(Dem., 12, 4; cf. the statement of Achilles in Homer, J/. 1,334). It is probably 
because of this position, guaranteed by the universally recognized moral and 
religious law, that heralds occasionally functioned as political ambassadors, or at 
least went out before them (Dem., 19, 163). 

The following general characteristics may therefore be listed. The kéryx was 
always under the authority of someone else, whose spokesman he was. He him- 
self was immune. He conveyed the message and intention of his master. He had, 



therefore, unlike for example the presbys, envoy (— Bishop), no liberty of his own 
to negotiate. His office had in every case an official character, even when he 
appeared in the market-place as a public middleman or auctioneer (e.g. Hdt., 6, 
121). He was, therefore, also the announcer of judicial verdicts. What he announced 
became valid by the act of proclamation. The binding, commanding and settling 
nature of this proclamation distinguishes kéryssé and its cognates from — angello 
and its compounds, which refer rather to the imparting of information, or making 
of an offer. oe | 

3. With the relaxation of the rigid order of the polis, the Stoics were provided 
with the opportunity for giving a quite different interpretation to the office of 
kéryx, after it had largely lost its significance for society. In addition to the political 
authorities, the Eleusinian mysteries already possessed their special heralds, who 
- carried out liturgical functions in the cult, took over responsibility for the an- 
nouncements, and together with the priests exercised great influence; and to 
Hermes had been attributed the function of a herald sent to men by the gods. 
Epictetus (Dissertationes 3, 22, 13 ff.) saw the real kéryx of his day in the Cynic 
philosopher, who moved around the country as a messenger of the gods and 
guardian of the moral order (kataskopos, Dissertationes 3, 22, 69). Without means 
of his own, and totally dedicated to his task, he came to denounce the way of life 
of his contemporaries and to call them to repentance, reformation of life, and 
concern about salvation. These preachers of — virtue, who deliberately dissociated 
themselves from every religious observance, laying all their emphasis upon integ- 
rity in everyday living and on an inner, higher peace (Epictetus, Dissertationes 
3, 22, 9 ff.), dissolved religion, morality and philosophy into a single whole. They 
prepared the stage on which later the messengers of the gospel of Jesus Christ were 
to stand. How close the message of the latter could on occasion seem to Stoic 
preaching, both in language and in content, may be seen from the remarks which 
for instance Paul has to make in | Thess. 2:3 ff., in order to make the distinction 

oT 1. (a) In striking contrast to the generality of Gk. literature, the noun kéryx 

occurs only four times altogether in the LXX, and in three of these instances 
without a Heb. equivalent. Even here it never refers to a Jewish institution or 
person, but to foreign ones: in Gen. 41:43 (where the LXX has paraphrased the 
Heb. garah as ekéryxen ...kéryx, a herald called out before him.. .), the reference 
is to the function of a servant of Pharaoh; in Dan. 3:4 it is Nebuchadnezzar’s 
herald who calls the people to worship the image; in 4 Macc. 6:4 it is the herald of 
Antiochus IV; and in Sir. 20:15 the figure of a herald is used metaphorically for 
the raising of the voice. In Gen. 41 and Dan. the emphasis is upon the vb. kérysso, 
which appears in addition to the noun. 

All this is evidence that a figure comparable to the Gk. kéryx was unknown in 
Israel, and that it was clearly not appropriate to describe the — prophets in this 

(b) As far as the vb. kérysso is concerned, the picture is a little different. The 
LXX uses the word 29 times, usually to render the Heb. garah; but in Jon. 3:7 for 
za‘aq, to — cry; and in Hos. 5:8, Joel 2:1, Zeph. 3:14, Zech. 9:9, for the hiph. of 
ria‘, which refers to a loud cry (in the first two instances, the cry of alarm raised or 



accompanied by instruments, both times on the mountain; in the other two, the 
triumphant battle-cry or shout of victory). In Exod. 36:6 and 2 Chr..36:22, 
kéryss6 is used for an announcement (Heb. gd/, voice) made throughout the camp 
by Moses, and throughout the kingdom by Cyrus, the Persian king. 

Since, however, garah is found over 650 times in the OT and is usually translated 
in the LXX by kaleo, to — call, or ekkaleo, to call forth, we have to ask for what 
special kind of calling the vb. kérysso is used in the translation. If we leave aside 
Zech. 9:9 and Zeph. 3:14, as being special cases, we may say that the word is 
used only for three classic functions of the herald: (i) for the proclamation of a 
cultic festival (Exod. 32:5; 2 Ki. 10:20; 2 Chr. 30:5; also Dan. 3:4 LXX, of the 
cultic call to worship made by the Babylonian herald; — Feast), or — fast (2 Chr. 
20:3; Joel 1:14; 2:15; also Jon. 3:5, 7, by the citizens or the king of — Nineveh); 
(ii) for the orders of the military commander in the field, or a decree of the prince, 
which have to be proclaimed (Exod. 36:6; 2 Chr. 24:9; also the apocryphal 
passages 1 Esd 2:2, the decree of Cyrus that the Jews should return and the 
temple be rebuilt; and 9:3, Ezra’s command to the Jews; 1 Macc. 5:49[51], Judas’ 
command to attack Ephron); (iii) for the proclamation of — judgment (Hos. 5:8; 
Joel 3:9; Jon. 3:2, 4) or of Yahweh’s day of judgment (Joel 2:1), or in Isa. 61:1 
the announcement of liberty to captives; in this category also, following classical 
usage, belongs the proclamation of the rehabilitation of those accused (Mordecai, 
Est. 6:9, 11; Jonathan, 1 Macc. 10:63 f.). 

Prov. 1:21, 8:1 and 9:3 belong in a special category of their own. These are the 
passages in which — wisdom cries out with a loud voice, in a way comparable with 
the Stoic use of the word. In Mic. 3:5 kérysso is used to render the false prophets’ 
proclamation of peace. The noun kérygma is found once in each of the above 
categories, describing the content of what is proclaimed (2 Chr. 30:5; 1 Esd. 9:3; 
Jon. 3:2; Prov. 9:3). Categories (i) and (ii) move within the familiar framework 
of orders given by human authorities; but all the prophetic passages mentioned 
under (iii) speak of the proclamation of a judgment of Yahweh. The number of 
references is, however, relatively small, a fact which confirms that the caution 
with which the OT makes use of the noun also applies to the vb. The latter never 
becomes a term of central importance in the OT’s proclamation of salvation; this 
purpose is served by other vbs. (e.g. angello). 

2. In Jewish writings outside the OT, the noun karoz, herald, public crier, - 
probably a word borrowed from the Persian, is found frequently in the rabbis. 
Josephus’ use of kéryx corresponds to the classical Gk. usage, when reference is 
made to the conveying of military commands, and to diplomatic missions (cf. 
Ant. 10, 75; War 2, 624; 3, 92). In Philo, on the other hand, the words are found 
only here and there, and then as a technical term for the utterances of the OT 
prophets (cf. K. Goldammer, ZNW 48, 1957, 80). In rabbinic literature both the 
noun and the vb. appear, where an announcement (e.g. Shabbath 15d, 38) or a 
judicial verdict (Sanhedrin 6:1; Sanhedrin 43a) is publicly proclaimed; and also 
for the public announcement of rabbinic decisions on doctrine when these are 
relevant to the keeping of the law (Rosh ha-Shanah 21a), and to describe the one 
who is commissioned by the rabbi to make known instructions for conduct during 
the synagogue service (Berakoth 7c, 59). Sometimes, the sound of the bat-qol, the 
voice from heaven (— Word, art. phoné, OT 3), is linked with kdraz, call together, 



call out, announce. On the whole, however, the term which is found relatively 
often, is used in a technical and formal way. It is used to introduce rabbinic 
decisions on doctrine, or the citation of scripture. 

3. In the literature of Qumran the vb. sa@par, to tell, recount, which can sometimes 
come close in meaning to the Gk. kéryssé, occurs fairly frequently in the Hymns. 
Here, of course, it is used of the congregation’s, or the individual worshipper’s, 
act of witnessing and proclaiming in praise of God, recording the wonderful works 
of Yahweh (e.g. 1QH 3:20; 10:20), or his honour (1QH 11:6), majesty (1QH 
12:30), patience and mercy (1QH 17:17; 18:14). Occasionally also God’s own 
proclamation is spoken of, e.g., in his creation and his deeds (1QH 1:12; 13:11). 

NT |. The first noticeable feature in the NT is that, in keeping with the LXX, it 

uses the noun kéryx only 3 times, and that in later writings (1 Tim. 2:7; 2 Tim. 
1:11; 2 Pet. 2:5). kérygma, too, is found relatively seldom: in Paul, for the message 
of Christ which he proclaims (Rom. 16:25, kérygma lésou Christou), or his preach- 
ing generally (in | Cor. 2:4; 15:14 with possessive pronouns; cf. 1 Cor. 1:21); 
more formalized in 2 Tim. 4:17 and Tit. 1:3; and finally in Matt. 12:41 par. Lk. 
11:32, for the message of — Jonah to — Nineveh. 

The vb. kéryss6, on the other hand, is found relatively frequently (61 times). It 
occurs 19 times in the Pauline epistles including Col., and 1 and 2 Tim.; 8 times in 
Acts; 9 times each in Matt. and Lk.; 14 times in Mk.; and once each in | Pet. and 
Rev. It is notable for its total absence in the Johannine writings, Heb. and Jas. An 
analysis of the grammatical object of the vb. reveals that in early passages of Paul 
(1 Thess. 2:9; Gal. 2:2; but cf. also Col. 1:23) and in some Marcan (Mk. 1:14; 
13:10; 14:9) and Matthean (Matt. 4:23; 9:35; 24:14; 26:13) contexts the object 
is to euangelion, the — gospel; while in the Corinthian letters (1 Cor. 1:23; 15:12; 
2 Cor. 1:19; 11:4), Phil. 1:15 and Acts 8:5; 9:20; 19:13 it is Christos (4 times), 
Tésous (3 times) or Christ Jesus who is proclaimed. John the Baptist proclaimed the 
baptisma metanoias eis aphesin hamartion, “baptism of repentance for the for- 
giveness of sins” (Mk. 1:4; Lk. 3:3; cf. Acts 10:37; > Baptism). For Luke the 
basileia, — kingdom, is the object of proclamation (Lk. 8:1; 9:2; Acts 20:25; 
28:31); for Matthew, too, the kingdom is the actual content of the gospel which 
is proclaimed (cf. Matt. 4:23; 9:35; 24:14). 

2. (a) This evidence makes it quite clear that, no doubt deliberately, the NT 
witnesses, following other streams of Judaism, avoided identifying themselves or 
the messengers of Jesus with the Gk. institution of the kéryx, open as it was to 
such a wide variety of interpretation. Only in the later passages 1 Tim. 2:7 and 
2 Tim. 1:11 (leaving aside the description of —-> Noah as a kéryx of righteousness 
in 2 Pet. 2:5), is the word introduced, and then in combination with apostolos, > 
apostle, which qualifies it. This is probably to be explained by the stronger tendency 
of the church to think in terms of institutions at a time when the eschatological 
aspect was diminishing in importance, and the church was adjusting herself to a 
permanent existence in the world. (On this whole question — Present: The Parousia 
and Eschatology in the NT.) But even these two texts still reveal the basic difference 
between the biblical viewpoint and that of the surrounding world: it is not the 
institution or the person to which importance is attached, but only the effective 
act of proclamation. This appears to be the reason why the establishment of a 



definite, protected, official position was avoided by not using the noun which was 
ready to hand. This is confirmed by the fact that Jn., who in similar contexts prefers 
the vb. martyred, to witness, uses the noun martyria, testimony, but not martys, a 
witness (— Witness, NT 4). Even in the case of the unusual description of Noah as a 
kéryx, the writer is hardly thinking of an office but rather of the sign constituted by 
Noah’s actions as a whole. 

(b) A similar finding results from a study of the term kérygma, proclamation, 
in the NT. Where it is used, in Matt. 12:41 par. Lk. 11:32 for the kérygma of > 
Jonah, it undoubtedly includes also the content of Jonah’s message to Nineveh. 
But the emphasis probably lies much more on the carrying out by Jonah of a divine 
commission: the delivery of a message containing not only a threat of judgment 
but also an invitation to repentance and salvation. Similarly Matt. 3:3 par. Mk. 
1:3, Lk. 3:4 cites Isa. 40:3: “the voice of one crying [bodntos]. . .”’ (— Cry, art. 
boad). In the three texts accepted as Pauline (1 Cor. 1:21; 2:4; 15:14), this empha- 
sis is even more obvious. Though it may not be clear where dia tés morias, by 
the foolishness (1:21), refers to content or to means of delivery, it must be said 

that ouk en peithois sophias logois, “‘not in plausible words of wisdom” (2:4), goes 
- further in the direction of describing the apostle’s manner of speaking; and simi- 
larly that 15:14 has in mind the apostle’s activity of preaching just as much as the 
content of his message. In Rom. 16:25 kérygma, message, is already becoming 
hypostasized: it is Christ-preaching, as carried out by Paul. Furthest of all along 
this line goes 2 Tim. 4:17. “But the Lord stood by me and gave me strength to 
proclaim the word fully [hina di’ emou to kérygma plérophoréthé], that all the Gen- 
tiles might hear it.”” Here the kérygma is the actual act of proclamation, which has 
need of the particular messenger only in order, as it were, to complete it and give it 
concrete fulfilment (— Fullness, art. p/érod). Tit. 1:3 is similar: “‘and at the proper 
time manifested in his word through the preaching with which I have been en- 
trusted [ton logon autou en kérygmati ho episteuthén] by command of God our 
Saviour.” | 

(c) The nouns of this group are thus used in the NT generally to express the 
form of activity: what the kérygma is, what the content that it makes known, can 
be seen only from the context in each case. The NT is therefore as faithful to the 
original meaning of the word as is the OT. kérygma is the phenomenon of a call 
which goes out and makes a claim upon the hearers: it corresponds to the life and 
activity of the prophets. The idea that in terms of content it “‘can or must be as it 
were the ‘evangelical’ substance of the Christian message, the nuclear revelation 
after the mythical has been eliminated” cannot be established from the NT (K. 
Goldammer, ZNW 48, 1957, 96). The qualitative concept of kérygma, as it appears 
in the mid-twentieth-century theology of R. Bultmann and his school, is the product 
of theological reflection. It takes up the language of the NT, but uses the word in a 
sense which is at most marginally present in the NT. If we seek the origin of this 
usage, we may find it in the 4th cent. Athanasius, who, after centuries in which the 
word had been used in the most various of ways, was probably the first to use it in 
the full sense of Christian or church doctrine (De Decretis Nicaenae Synodi 26, 7; 
cf. K. Goldammer, ibid.) 

3. (a) The NT’s completely predominant conception of proclamation as a 
process and event, whose content can only be determined by closer definition, is 



confirmed by the considerably greater frequency with which the vb. is used in 
comparison with the nouns. kéryss6 is one of a number of formal verbs of telling 
and communication, which connote a certain means of communication but are 
not limited as to the content (e.g. didask6, to teach; angello, to report, together 
with its compounds; /egd, to say; homologeo, to confess; martyred, to bear witness, 
with its compounds; euangelizomai, to preach; gnorizd, to make known; and others 
(cf. G. Friedrich, TDNT III 703). The wide range of words used in the NT indicates 
that none of the vbs. gained a position of clear dominance or was able to become a 
technical term. 

Just how fluid the terminology was in seen from the fact that Paul in 1 Thess. 2:2, 
9, describes his ministry in the same context as /alésai . . . to euangelion, ‘‘to tell. . . 
the gospel’, and as ekéryxamen . . . to euangelion, “‘we proclaimed . . . the gospel’’; 
while in Phil. 1:18 he expresses this same act of proclamation by the vb. katangello. 
Similarly, Luke in Lk. 4:43 (par. Mk. 1:38) and Lk. 9:6 (par. Mk. 6:12) replaces 
the Marcan kérysso by euangelizo. But in Lk. 8:1 he uses both vbs. synonymously 
side by side, and in Lk. 6:13 (par. Mk. 3:14) he appears to have subsumed the 
kéryssein which Mark expressly mentions into the term — apostle. 

The nearest the NT comes to the classical figure of the herald is in Rev. 5:2, 
where the angel makes a proclamation with a mighty voice, and | Pet. 3:19, where 
the voice of the Crucified rings out in Hades (here the vb. is used on its own without 
an object). (For alternative interpretations of the latter passage — Flesh, art. sarx, 
NT 2 (a); — also Hell.) But Matt. 10:27 par. Lk. 12:3, where proclaiming from the 
roof-tops is a reference to the public revelation of what has hitherto been secret 
and hidden, ought also to be mentioned in this context. 

(b) Traces of the original meaning of the word are also to be found here and 
there in Paul. In Rom. 2:21 he addresses those who make a demand that men 
should not steal, and yet do it themselves: ““While you preach against stealing, do 
you steal [ho kérysson mé kleptein klepteis|?’’. Here kérysson may be compared 
with the Stoic sense of proclamation of a definite commandment which demands 
obedience. There is a similar thought in 1 Cor. 9:27. The call to a certain course 
of action or behaviour, though it is not here a matter of ethics, is also expressed 
by the vb. in Gal. 5:11, where Paul is dissociating himself from the continuing 
proclamation of circumcision, i.e. the propagation of conversion to Judaism as 
an expression of obedience to the only God. 

Positively Paul sees himself as one who proclaims to euangelion tou theou, the 
— gospel of God (1 Thess. 2:9), among the Gentiles (Gal. 2:2), something which 
can be done only if it is accompanied by a total giving of his own person (1 Thess. 
2:8). For Paul proclamation is not, as with Jonah, a once-for-all cry which might 
be compared with simply sticking up a poster. The proclamation of the message 
of Christ, as he understands it, requires unceasing pleading and wooing, with a 
love that seeks, and is accompanied by a constant care for the individual (cf. the 
labour and toil by day and night of 1 Thess. 2:9; cf. also 2 Cor. 5:18 ff.). It also 
involves exhortation (— Exhort, art. parakaled), warning (parakalountes), en- 
couragement (— Comfort, art. paramytheomai), and — witness. In such a con- 
text keryssein appears as the central act of proclamation, which is needed, like 
the setting up of a signpost, if the — call of God (tou theou tou kalountos hymas, 
the God who calls you, 1 Thess. 2:12) is to be realized — as it is when the hearers 



enter upon the kind of life which is worthy (axios) of the glory of God which is 
about to be revealed. 

The basis for this invitation (i.e. its content and origin) may be discovered from 
those passages in his later epistles where Paul uses kérysso, to proclaim. It is Christ, 
i.e. a person, whom Paul proclaims in this way (1 Cor. 1:23; 15:12; 2 Cor. 1:19; 
4:5; Phil. 1:15; cf. 2 Cor. 11:4 Jésoun, Jesus). It is in fact the crucified Christ 
(1 Cor. 1:23; cf. 2:2), that is the death of this Jesus, which is presented in this pro- 
clamation as the basis of life. It 1s the Christ in whom Paul sees all the previous — 
promises of God as being fulfilled and taking concrete form (2 Cor. 1:20). It is 
the Christ to whom Paul bears witness on the ground of the tradition handed 
down to him (— Teach, art. paradidomi), but also on the ground of his own ex- 
perience (1 Cor. 15:3-8), as the one who appeared to his own after his death, as 
the Risen One (— Resurrection). 1 Cor. 15:1 f. leaves no doubt that the — death 
of Jesus for the sin of others, and his presence and exaltation, made possible only 
by this means (cf. Phil. 2:8—11), formed the central content of what Paul preached 
as the saving and world-changing message (1 Cor. 15:12). According to | Thess. 
4:13 ff., the promise of the general resurrection and of the parousia, i.e. the pre- 
sence, of Jesus also form part of it (— Present). W. Baird (JBL 76, 187) is probably 
right when he points out that (according to Gal. 1:11—-17) it is not the facts and 
doctrines which had already been formulated in the pre-Pauline era which charac- 
terize Paul’s proclamation, but the preaching of Jesus as the Son, raised to life, of 
which Paul had become convinced through revelation. If such a teaching be 
regarded as mythological, it will be difficult to disentangle the gospel from it 
completely without at the same time altering the gospel’s content. 

The act of proclamation is ultimately a prerequisite of — faith, inasmuch as it 
has as its goal not simply the imparting of information or a formal allegiance, but a 
faith which involves self-surrender and trust (cf. 1 Cor. 15:11). Therefore, Paul sees 
proclamation as legitimate and possible only where a commission and authority 
has been given (Rom. 10:8 ff.; cf. Rom. 10:15 with Acts 13:3 and Isa. 52:10). 
This means that Christ is not merely an object of proclamation, but also the 
subject, who has authority over it. He himself is the one who commands the 
proclamation, who at the same time wills to be present, and allows the hearers to 
experience him in and through such human proclamation (cf. Gal. 3:1). 

(c) The Synoptic Gospels all use kéryss6é for the activity of John the Baptist 
(Matt. 3:1; Mk. 1:4; Lk. 3:3), indicating, as the allusion to Isa. 40:3 also shows, 
that he is the last of the — prophets (— Cry, art. boad). Mk. sums up his preaching 
as that of a baptisma metanoias eis aphesin hamartion, “baptism of repentance for 
the forgiveness of sins.”” The phrase includes both the means and the end. Matt. 
and Lk. develop this further with some examples of his teaching. All three Gospels 
record, however, that the Baptist’s preaching extended to the announcement of the 
coming Stronger One (ischyroteros), through whose Spirit-baptism a new order 
will begin (Matt. 3:11 par. Mk. 1:7, Lk. 3:16; cf. Jn. 1:26 f.). 

(i) Matthew inserts at this point (Matt. 3:2), as the factor which legitimates and 
motivates John’s kéryssein, the sentence éngiken gar hé basileia ton ouran6n, “for 
the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” This means that John’s call to repentance is set 
against the background of the promised lordship of Christ. This is why it is taken 
up by Jesus in exactly the same words (Matt. 4:17), and is emphasized at Matt. 



10:7 as the centre of the message the disciples are to proclaim, which begins as they 
are sent out. Jesus himself thus moves into the area, as it were, between the Testa- 
ments, into the centre of time. Just as the prophets, represented by John, have 
pointed forward to his coming, before he himself establishes the signs of the 

' basileia (cf. the summaries in Matt. 4:23; 9:35; 11:1), so the disciples bear witness 
to its dawning, as something that has already happened and is now present in their 
proclamation (‘“‘He who receives you, receives. me’, Matt. 10:40; cf. 24:12). 
The content of the kéryssein remains the same — a proclamation of the Lordship of 
Christ. But the form and perspective of the preaching is conditioned by its setting in 
history (and in the history of salvation). 

It is to be observed that Matt. is the only evangelist to use the term kéryssein 
exclusively in reference to the ministry of John, Jesus, and the disciples expressly 
sent out by him. He thus underlines the binding, almost judicial and official 
character of the proclamation, which, in contrast to didaskein, to teach, takes 
place not only in the synagogues but also in the wilderness and the villages, in 
short even outside the traditional limits of the community and the places and 
meetings where it might be expected, even among the Gentiles (Matt. 24:14, 
throughout the whole inhabited world). 

(ii) No such systematization can be found in Mark. Here too the line may indeed 
be followed from John (Mk. 1:4, 7), through Jesus (Mk. 1:38 f.), to the commis- 
sioned disciples (Mk. 3:14; cf. 6:12). Likewise the extension of the sphere of 
proclamation from Israel to the Gentiles is noted in the so-called “‘Little Apoca- 
lypse”” (Mk. 13:10; cf. Matt. 24:14; on this — Present: The Parousia and Escha- 
tology in the NT, 2 (a)). But Mk. emphasizes the inner power and the necessity of 
proclamation, rather than its official character. Even before the disciples have been 
commissioned, those who have been healed proclaim, despite being expressly 
forbidden to do so. What has happened to them is a result of their encounter with 
Jesus (Mk. 1:45; 5:20 par. Lk. 8:39; Mk. 7:36). Their encounter with Jesus, their 
experience of the mercy of God, their own recognition of the dawn of the new age 
in this Jesus (Mk. 7:37 echoes Isa. 35:5) are enough to compel them to tell others. 
Without any formal ratification this telling becomes proclamation. 

(iii) Finally, Luke (Luke/Acts) taking up the prophetic words of Isa. 61:1 f. in 
Jesus’ sermon at Nazareth (the place of proclamation is first of all the synagogue: 
Lk. 4:16, 44; cf. Mk. 1:39) and his declaration that the word has been fulfilled by 
his coming, describes Jesus as the one who both proclaims and carries through 
the work of God, and then sends out the disciples to proclaim it (Lk. 10:9 par. 
Matt. 10:7). When they speak of Christ, they proclaim by that very act the basileia, 
as God’s new ordering of the things in the world, taking place in and through Jesus 
(cf. the activity of Philip in Samaria, Acts 8:5, with the description of the work of 
Paul in Acts 9:20; 20:25; 28:31). Conversely the proclamation of the basileia is 
tied up with the words and teaching of Jesus (Acts 28:31, didaskon ta tou kyriou Iésou 
Christou, “teaching the things of the Lord Jesus Christ’’). Jesus is described as the 
Son of God (Acts 9:20), as the Risen One (e.g. Acts 2:32; 4:10), the guarantor of 
resurrection from the dead (Acts 4:2), in whose name alone the — forgiveness of 
sins Which John proclaimed can be realized (Acts 2:38; cf. Lk. 24:47). Acts 15:21 
(“‘from early generations Moses has had in every city those who preach him’’, i.e. 
the law) makes it clear that the proclamation to which kéryssein refers also lays 



down binding principles of faith and life for the fellowship which it sets up and 
which Is set up in accordance with it. In this respect the vb. goes beyond euangeli- 
zomai, a word which Luke uses in an otherwise synonymous sense. 

4. We must now ask what is the particular nuance of kéryss6 as compared with 
the other, synonymous words used for the passing on of the message of Christ. 
Both Luke and Paul prefer the vb. euangelizo when they want to describe the total 
activity of proclamation (in the case of Lk., katangellé also). But it may also be 
noted that kéryss6 is particularly used when the message of the rule of God as it 
has dawned in Christ, and of his resurrection, is proclaimed in a particular instance 
by angels (Lk. 1:19; 2:10) or men (Lk. 3:18; 9:6; Acts 5:42; 8:4 ff.). Here the 
messengers are not bandying slogans. The proclamation in each case has a 
thoroughly personal character and the one who proclaims must stake his existence 
upon it. “If the word has precedence over the text, because the word intended is 
God’s word, as it was heard and could be said in Jesus as God’s ‘yes’ to man, faith 
has to proclaim this word by repeating Jesus. The task of proclamation is to repeat 
Jesus” (E. Fuchs, Studies of the Historical Jesus, SBT 42, 1964, 200). The vb. 
kerysso characterizes the concrete proclamation of the message in a particular 
instance, with special reference to the claim that is being made, and its authority 
to set up a new order. It includes information, but is always more than mere in- 
struction or a bare offer, and is equally distinct from the communication of philo- 
sophical teaching or general — wisdom. kerysso sets a standard, to ignore which 1s 
not simply indifference but refusal. 

At the same time the conveying of the message of Christ does not consist solely 
in kéryssein, as Matt., who has given the vb. its firmest position, makes clear. He 
describes the work of Jesus as didaskon ... kai kerysson ... kai therapeuon, 
“teaching... and preaching... and healing” (Matt. 4:23; 9:35). The description 
of the disciples’ work follows the same pattern, albeit without didaskén (Matt. 
10:7 ff.; cf. Mk. 3:14 f.; 6:12 f.). For Matt. significantly, Jesus alone is the teacher, 
apart from the OT quotation in Matt. 15:9. The word does not appear in con- 
nexion with the disciples until the great commission of Matt. 28:20. All this is to 
say that the event of proclamation is surrounded by objective instruction and by 
events and actions which symbolically make known the dawn and the power of the 
new age. It is not only the proclamation of the new age, but it makes space for the 
latter to grow. This, and probably only this, provides the protection against blind 
fascination, on the one hand, and against spiritualization and idealization, on the 
other. L. Coenen 

The Structure and Content of the Early Kerygma 

The subject of the kerygma has never been far from the forefront of critical dis- 
cussion for the past half-century. It was virtually an axiom of Bultmann and his 
school that the primitive church was deeply interested in the Christ of the kerygma 
but cared little for the historical Jesus (cf. R. Bultmann, “The Significance of the 
Historical Jesus for the Theology of Paul’, in Faith and Understanding, I, 1969, 
220-46; New Testament Theology, I, 1952, 33-183; and “‘The Primitive Christian 
Kerygma and the Historical Jesus’, in C. E. Braaten and R. A. Harrisville, eds., 
The Historical Jesus and the Kerygmatic Christ, 1964, 15-42). This was bound up 



with two wider theological positions. On the one hand, there was the philosophical 
and dogmatic conviction that the knowledge of God is on a different plane from the 
knowledge of facts which, of course, include historical facts. On the other hand, 
it was related to a sceptical approach to form criticism which maintained that 
careful analysis of the literary forms detected within the NT writings showed a lack 
of interest in historical questions (cf. Bultmann, The History of the Synoptic 
Tradition, [1921] ET 19687; M. Dibelius, From Tradition to Gospel, [1933] ET 
[1934] 1971; K. L. Schmidt, Der Rahmen der ,Geschichte Jesu. Literarkritische 
Untersuchungen zur dltesten Uberlieferung, [1919] 1964). It was argued that the 
first Christians were so absorbed by the thought of the Risen Christ and the 
parousia that they had no concern for biographical details of Jesus. Such an in- 
terest developed later on with second and third generation Christians. 

W. Schmithals has argued that gospel traditions remained unknown or virtually 
apocryphal until the time of Justin Martyr (‘Paulus und der historische Jesus’, 
ZNW 53, 1962, 145 ff.). Within the ranks of Bultmann’s disciples E. Kasemann 
signalled a return of interest in the historical Jesus in a lecture delivered in 1953 on 
“The Problem of the Historical Jesus’ (Essays on New Testament Themes, SBT 
41, 1964, 15-47). The considerable debate which followed focused on the question 
of the relationship between the kerygma and the historical Jesus and the adequacy 
of the existentialist interpretation of history. Moreover, interest in form criticism 
has given way to interest in redaction criticism and tradition criticism investigating 
the treatment of the hypothetical sources and traditions at various stages of alleged 
development. For discussions see J. M. Robinson, 4 New Quest of the Historical 
Jesus, SBT 25, 1959; J. Rohde, Rediscovering the Teaching of the Evangelists, 1968; 
N. Perrin, Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus, 1967; and What is Redaction 
Criticism ?, 1970; R. H. Fuller, The Foundations of New Testament Christology, 
1965; R. S. Barbour, Traditio-Historical Criticism of the Gospels, 1972; and more 
briefly G. N. Stanton, Jesus of Nazareth in New Testament Preaching, Society for 
New Testament Studies Monograph Series 27, 1974, 1-12. 

Kasemann contends that the Gospels are a (late) reaction to early Christian 
enthusiasm which at least partly overlooked the earthly Jesus (““Blind Alleys in the 
‘Jesus of History’ Controversy’, New Testament Questions of Today, 1969, 23-66). 
Others see a difference of interest in the separation of Gentile and Jewish Chris- 
tianity, but with apparently contradictory results. G. Ebeling suggests that cultured 
Hellenistic circles would have appreciated a biographical presentation of Jesus 
especially as the presuppositions of OT thought and Jewish apocalypticism were 
less strong for them (Theology and Proclamation, 1966, 133). But U. Wilckens 
believes that the Hellenistic churches, including Paul, preached a Christ-kerygma 
which knew virtually nothing about the teaching and ministry of Jesus. The latter 
remained the preserve of Jewish Christians in Palestine; only later did the traditions 
about Jesus penetrate the Hellenistic churches (“‘Tradition de Jésus et Kérygme du 
Christ: La Double Histoire de la Tradition au Sein du Christianisme Primitif”’, 
Revue d’Histoire et de Philosophie Religieuses 47, 1967, 1-20; ‘‘Hellenistisch- 
christliche Missionsiiberlieferung und Jesustradition’”, TLZ 89, 1964, 518 ff.). 
Similar views have been argued by S. G. F. Brandon, The Fall of Jerusalem, 1951; 
P. Vielhauer, ““Ein Weg zur neutestamentlichen Christologie?”, EvTh 25, 1965, 
24-72; and S. Schulz, ‘““Die neue Frage nach dem historischen Jesus’’, in H. Balten- 



sweiler and B. Reicke, eds., Neues Testament und Geschichte. Historisches Ge- 
schehen und Deutung im Neuen Testament. Oscar Cullmann zum 70. Geburtstag, 
1972, 33 ff. It may be noted in passing that any thesis which posits a sharp cultural 
and religious difference between Palestinian and Hellenistic Judaism is likely to 
be subjected to increasingly sharp scrutiny in the light of the growing conviction 
that Hellenistic culture had pervaded Jewish life more early and more deeply than 
had been considered. Although the Hellenists formed a separate group in Acts, it is 
now highly questionable whether these two outlooks can be set in diametrical 
opposition in the NT period (cf. I. H. Marshall, ‘‘Palestinian and Hellenistic 
Christianity: Some Critical Comments’, NTS 19, 1972-73, 271-87; M. Hengel, 
Judaism and Hellenism, I-II, 1974). 

A somewhat different approach has been advanced by Scandinavian scholars. 
H. Riesenfeld argues that the origin of the gospel tradition goes back to Jesus’ own 
messianic consciousness (“The Gospel Tradition and its Beginnings’, StudEy, 1, 
1959, 43-65; reprinted as a separate paper, 1957, and also in The Gospels Recon- 
sidered: A Selection of Papers read at the International Congress on the Four 
Gospels in 1957, 1960, 131-54; and The Gospel Tradition, 1970, 1-29). ‘‘Jesus is 
not only the object of a later faith, which on its side gave rise to the growth of oral 
and also written tradition, but, as Messiah and teacher, Jesus is the object and 
subject of a tradition of authoritative and holy words which he himself created 
and entrusted to his disciples for its later transmission in the epoch between his 
death and the parousia” (The Gospel Tradition, 29). Missionary preaching was not 
the Sitz im Leben of the gospel traditions (op. cit., 11; on this point he leans on the 
arguments of C. H. Dodd discussed below). Rather, ‘‘the recitation of the tradition 
about Jesus as the sacred word of the New Covenant essential constituent 
in Christian public worship” (op. cit., 21). The need for authorized transmitters 
of the text gave rise to the growth of the Christian ministry and in turn led to the 
production of the Gospels. Jesus himself adopted the methods of a Jewish rabbi, 
and taught his disciples to learn likewise. In other words, they learned by heart and 
the Gospels have their ultimate origin in the teaching of Jesus himself. 

Riesenfeld’s position has been extended by his pupil, B. Gerhardsson, in Memory 
and Manuscript: Oral Tradition and Written Transmission in Rabbinic Judaism and 
Early Christianity, Acta Seminarii Neotestamentici Upsaliensis 12, 1961; and 
Tradition and Transmission in Early Christianity, Coniectanea Neotestamentica 20, 
1964 (in which he replies to criticisms of the earlier work). Gerhardsson made a 
detailed study of later rabbinic methods of transmitting teaching and suggested 
that they were employed by Jesus himself. His critics have accused him of reading 
into the NT period the methods of a later age. They also point out that the Gospels 
themselves admit of variations in the choice of what is given, the precise wording 
of common material and the paraenetic interest of the evangelists. However, whilst 
there are points of substance here and more work needs to be done on teaching 
methods, this approach at least has the merit of seeking to relate the teaching of 
Jesus to the life-setting of Jewish teaching. A somewhat different position has been 
argued by T. Boman in Die Jesus-Uberlieferung im Lichte der neueren Volkskunde, 
1967. In the light of recent study of the transmission of folklore tradition, he argues 
that the kerygma tradition proclaimed by the apostles was separate from the gospel 
traditions which were recounted by a special group of narrators who were subject 



to the apostles and prophets. But it is not easy to find direct evidence for a separate 
class of narrators or believe that the two activities could be reserved for different 

A number of writers have suggested that interest in the life of Jesus in the early 
church grew out of the need to have an example for Christian conduct in order to 
supplement the missionary kerygma (cf. A. M. Ramsey, ‘“‘The Gospel and the 
Gospels” in StudEv, I, and The Gospels Reconsidered, 99-106; and the discussions 
of E. J. Tinsley, The Imitation of God in Christ: An Essay in the Biblical Basis of 
Christian Spirituality, 1960; and ‘“‘Some Principles for Reconstructing a Doctrine 
of the Imitation of Christ”, S/T 25, 1972, 45-57; E. Larsson, Christus als Vorbild, 
1962; H. D. Betz, Nachfolge und Nachahmung Jesu Christi im Neuen Testament, 
BHTh 37, 1967; — Disciple). But whilst there are traces of this motivation in the 
NT (cf. 1 Cor. 11:1; 1 Thess. 1:6), G. N. Stanton points out that Jesus did not 
encourage the disciples to follow him in the ethical sense (op. cit., 8). Rather, 
following Jesus in the Gospels is a matter of personal commitment to him and 
preparedness to share his fate (cf. Mk. 8:34; Matt. 10:38 par. Lk. 14:27). More- 
over, the vb. to imitate (mimeomai) and the corresponding noun (mimétés) are not 
found in the Gospels. 

Throughout the debate there have always been those who rejected as a false 
choice Bultmann’s alternative of a kerygmatic Christ and the historical Jesus. It 
was felt that an interest in the former to the exclusion of the latter was simply 
unrealistic and that those who responded to the kerygma of the crucified Christ 
and risen Lord would have wanted to know something of his life, what made him 
what he was, and how he came to be crucified (cf. E. B. Redlich, Form Criticism: 
Its Value and Limitations, 1939; D. M. Baillie, God Was in Christ: An Essay on 
Incarnation and Atonement, 1948, 30-58; A. M. Ramsey, op. cit.; P. Althaus, The 
So-Called Kerygma and the Historical Jesus, 1959; R. A. Bartels, Kerygma or 
Gospel Tradition ... Which Came First?, 1961; C. F. D. Moule, “Jesus in New 
Testament Kerygma’’, in O. Boécher and K. Haacker, eds., Verborum Veritas. 
Festschrift fir Gustav Stahlin, 1970, 15-26). Moule takes up a suggestion of G. J. 
Paul that Mark was taken by Paul on his missionary journeys because his eye-witness 
reminiscences supplied an element in Paul’s preaching which he himself could not 
supply. ‘““He took, as it were, a ‘gospel source’ with him, in the form of a person 
acquainted with the facts”’ (op. cit., 25; cf. G. J. Paul, St. John’s Gospel: A Com- 
mentary, 1965, 26). Similarly, the Fourth Gospel complements the Johannine 
Epistles, in that without it some might conclude that the circle from which the 
epistles emanated had no concern for the sort of material that the Gospel of Jn. 
contains. Thus for Moule it is a mistake to assume that the epistles constitute the 
total kerygma. It is the thesis of G. N. Stanton’s work “‘that there is plenty of 
evidence which, taken cumulatively, indicates that the early church was interested 
in the life and character of Jesus and that the primary (though not the only) Sitz 
im Leben of that interest was the missionary preaching of the church” (op. cit., 
Although the distinction is commonly drawn between missionary proclamation 
(kérygma) and Christian teaching (didaché; — Teach), in practice the two were 
closely intertwined. It would appear that the confession of Jesus Christ as Lord 
was a very primitive response to the kerygma and may indeed have been part of 



the baptismal profession of initiates (cf. 1 Cor. 12:3; Rom. 10:9; with Acts 11:17, 
20; 16:31; Col. 2:6; and Acts 8:16; 19:5; 1 Cor. 6:11). At the same time the con- 
texts in which these passages appear indicate that they were also used for teaching. 
(On the emergence of confessional formulae in the NT see O. Cullmann, The 
Earliest Christian Confessions, 1949; J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds, 1950, 
6-29; V. H. Neufeld, The Earliest Christian Confessions, New Testament Tools 
and Studies 5, 1963; and E. Stauffer, New Testament Theology, 1955, 235-57.) The 
following passages contain summaries of the gospel which may well be couched in 
rhythmical language relating specifically to beliefs about Jesus as the Christ: 
Rom. 1:3 f.; 8:34; 1 Cor. 15:3 ff.; Phil. 2:6-11; 1 Tim. 3:16; 2 Tim. 2:8; 1 Pet. 
3:18 ff. Perhaps the following contain echoes of catechetical formulae: Gal. 1:4; 
1 Thess. 4:14; 5:9 f. There may also be traces of a formula used in exorcism and 
healing in Acts 3:6 and 4:10. Two-part formulae which link Jesus with the Father 
occur in Rom. 8:24; 1 Cor. 8:6; 1 Tim. 2:5 f.; 6:13 f.; 2 Tim. 4:1. 

The NT epistles contain a variety of phrases which suggest a corpus of teaching. 
Among those found in the later writings are: “the faith once delivered to the 
saints’’ (Jude 3); “‘your most holy faith” (Jude 20, implying a body of beliefs); 
“the pattern of sound words” (2 Tim. 1:13); “‘the healthy doctrine” (2 Tim. 4:3; 
Tit. 1:9); “‘the deposit [tén parathékén|’ and ‘“‘the noble deposit” (1 Tim. 6:20; 
2 Tim. 1:14); “‘the faith’? (1 Tim. 1:19; Tit. 1:13); “the splendid teaching” (1 Tim. 
4:6); “‘the confession” (Heb. 3:1; 4:14; 10:23); “‘the elementary doctrines’ (Heb. 
6:2); “the word of life’ (1 Jn. 1:1, though this may refer to Christ rather than the 
proclamation, cf. Jn. 1:1; but cf. also Acts 5:20; Phil. 2:16). Whilst some scholars 
take such expressions as evidence of the crystallization of a tradition towards the 
end of the NT period, there is strong evidence that the process of formulating 
Christian truth began at a much earlier stage. Thus in one of the earliest of his 
epistles Paul could write: “‘hold fast to the traditions [tas paradoseis| which you have 
been taught” (2 Thess. 2:15). In Rom. Paul could speak of “‘the pattern of doctrine 
[typon didachés|” (Rom. 6:17). To the Corinthians he could insist that his teaching 
on the Lord’s Supper was no innovation: “For I received from the Lord what I also 
delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took 
bread” (1 Cor. 11:23). But the element of tradition also extended to the content of 
Paul’s kerygma: “‘Now I would remind you, brethren, in what terms I preached 
to you the gospel [to euangelion ho euéngelisamen], which you received [ parelabete], 
in which you stand, by which you are saved, if you hold it fast — unless you believed 
in vain. For I delivered [paredoka] to you as of first importance what I also received, 
that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, that he was buried, 
that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he 
appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve” (1 Cor. 15:1—5). The term “‘the gospel’”’ 
also occurs in Rom. 2:16; 16:25; Gal. 2:2; cf. 1 Cor. 15:1). Paul speaks of “‘the 
preaching [kérygma]” and the “‘preaching of Jesus Christ” (Rom. 16:25), not in the 
sense of the activity of preaching but in that of its content. Similarly “‘the faith”’ 
(Gal. 1:23; Col. 2:7) denotes not simply the act of believing but also what is be- 
lieved (cf. also Eph. 4:5). In various letters Paul refers to “‘the word of the cross” 
(1 Cor. 1:18) or the word of God and of the Lord (1 Cor. 14:36; Gal. 6:6; 1 Thess. 
1:6; 2 Thess. 3:1; Phil. 1:14; cf. 1 Pet. 1:25). J. N. D. Kelly comments: “In 
contradiction to the view that St Paul was a daring doctrinal innovator, virtually 



the inventor of Catholic theology, all the evidence goes to prove that he had a 
healthy regard for the objective body of teaching authoritatively handed down in 
the Church” (op. cit., 10; cf. A. M. Hunter, Paul and his Predecessors, 1940; G. 
Bornkamm, Paul, 1971; and J. W. Fraser, Jesus and Paul: Paul as Interpreter of 
Jesus from Harnack to Kiimmel, 1974). 

In various writings C. H. Dodd endeavoured to go beyond this and establish 
the structure of apostolic preaching. In ““The Framework of the Gospel Narrative”’ 
(ExpT 43, 1931-32, 396-400; reprinted in New Testament Studies, 1953, 1-11) Dodd 
examined K. L. Schmidt’s form-critical approach to Mk. which insisted that Mk. 
was a compilation of separate pericopae transmitted independently. The present 
arrangement was due to the evangelist himself. Support for this thesis was found 
by Schmidt in the absence of precise chronological and geographical data and the 
way in which Mk. regularly introduces episodes by such expressions as “‘And he...”, 
‘“‘And they .. .”’. Whereas Schmidt maintained that Mk.’s editorial cement was 
historically worthless, Dodd put forward the thesis that, when the generalizing 
summaries were put together, they formed ‘‘a perspicuous outline of the Galilaean 
Ministry, forming a framework into which the separate pictures are set’? (New 
Testament Studies, 8). Into this framework Mk. arranged his material combining a 
chronological with a typical order. Dodd then compared this with the summary 
outlines of Jesus embedded in the primitive teaching in the speeches in Acts (the 
fullest being Acts 10:37-41 and 13:23-31) and 1 Cor. 15:3-7 and 11:23 ff. (cf. 
M. Dibelius, op. cit.). 

Dodd took the argument further in The Apostolic Preaching and its Developments, 
1936, where on the basis of an analysis of certain speeches in Acts (2: 14-39; 3: 13— 
26; 4:10 ff.; 5:30 ff.; 10:36—-43; 13:16-41) and of passages in Paul (Gal. 3:1, 3 f.; 
4:6; 1 Thess. 1:10; 1 Cor. 15:1-7; Rom. 1:1-4; 8:34; 2:16; 10:8 f.) he sought to 
establish a basic pattern of apostolic kerygma. He observed that three points in 
the Pauline kerygma do not appear in the kerygma of the Jerusalem church. (i) 
In the latter Jesus was not called “‘Son of God’’; he is called the holy and righteous 
servant, drawing on Isa. In Acts Paul is the first to call Jesus the Son of God (Acts 
9:20; cf. Rom. 1: 1-4), but Dodd suggests that the phrase “‘Son of God with power’’ 
means much the same as “‘Lord and Christ’’, both having a messianic significance 
(op. cit., 25). (ii) The Jerusalem kerygma did not explicitly say that “Christ died 
for our sins. The result of the life, death, and resurrection of Christ is the forgive- 
ness of sins, but this forgiveness is not specifically connected with Christ’s death”’ 
(ibid). (iii) ‘““The Jerusalem kerygma does not assert that the exalted Christ inter- 
cedes for us”’ (ibid.). This may have originated with Paul (cf. Rom. 8:34), but it 
may be non-Pauline (Heb. 7:25; Matt. 10:32). Dodd concludes: “‘For the rest, all 
the points of the Pauline preaching reappear: the Davidic descent of Jesus, guaran- 
teeing His qualification for Messiahship; His death according to the Scriptures; His 
resurrection according to the Scriptures; His consequent exaltation to the right 
hand of God as Lord and Christ; His deliverance of men from sin into new life; 
and His return to consummate the new Age. This coincidence between the apostolic 
preaching as attested by the speeches in Acts, and as attested by Paul, enables us to 
carry back its essential elements to a date far earlier than a critical analysis of Acts 
by itself could justify; for, as we have seen, Paul must have received the tradition 
very soon after the death of Jesus” (op. cit., 26). 



Dodd went on to note a similar outline theology restated in Heb. and | Pet. (op. 
cit., 44 f.; cf. 1 Pet. 1:11, 20; 2:22 f.; 3:18-22; Heb. 2:10, 18; 4:15; 5:7; 9:12, 24; 
10:1, 5-9, 20). This is due not so much to Paul’s direct influence as to the fact 
that it reflects the primitive apostolic kerygma generally. But the structure of the 
apostolic kerygma also sheds light on the structure of the Gospels. Mk. is an 
expanded form of the kerygma in which the ministry of Jesus is narrated as a pre- 
face to the passion story and the passion story is set within a framework of fulfil- 
ment (op. cit., 47 ff.; cf. Mk. 1:1). Like the speeches in Acts, Mk. is concerned 
especially with the acts of Jesus. The teaching of Jesus is kept to a bare minimum 
in Mk. Matt. and Lk. modify the perspective, because they combine didaché with 
kérygma (op. cit., 52 ff.). They do, however, include the Davidic descent in their 
genealogies which Mk. omits (cf. Matt. 1:1, 17; Lk. 2:4; 3:31). “In the Fourth 
Gospel we can discern, no less clearly than in Mark, and even more clearly than 
in Matthew and Luke, the fixed outline of the historical section of the kerygma 
as we have it in Acts x and xiii: the ministry of John the Baptist, the ‘anointing’ of 
Jesus with the Holy Spirit, His teaching and works of mercy and power in Galilee; 
His ministry in Judea and Jerusalem, His arrest and trial before Pilate, His cruci- 
fixion, burial, and resurrection”’ (op. cit., 69). “It is in the Fourth Gospel, which 
in form and expression, as probably in date, stands farthest from the original 
tradition of teaching, that we have the most penetrating exposition of its central 
meaning”’ (op. cit., 75). | 

Independently of Dodd, M. Dibelius put forward a case for tracing the speeches 
in the opening chapters of Acts to primitive material though he ascribed much less 
historical value to them (““The Speeches in Acts and Ancient Historiography’’, in 
Studies in the Acts of the Apostles, 1956, 138-85). Dodd’s whole line of approach 
has met with considerable opposition particularly among those who adopt a 
redaction-critical approach. E. Haenchen endorses without further argument the 
view that U. Wilckens “‘has proved against Dibelius and Dodd that Peter’s speeches 
in the first part of Acts do not contain any old pattern of Jewish-Christian mis- 
sionary preaching” (The Acts of the Apcstles, 1971, 129 f.; cf. U. Wilckens, Die 
Missionsreden der Apostelgeschichte, 19637). Rather Luke is here using his pattern 
of the Gentile Christian missionary preaching to present the early Christian mis- 
sion. This criticism reflects the outlook that Luke was the inventor of the Christian 
historical perspective in the early church, following the decline of parousia expec- 
tation. (For a statement and critique of this position — Present; and for a critique 
of Wilckens’s specific arguments see G. N. Stanton, op. cit., 19-30.) 

Dodd’s argument has also come under fire from D. E. Nineham in “‘The Order 
of Events in St. Mark’s Gospel — an Examination of Dr. Dodd’s Hypothesis” (in 
D. E. Nineham, ed., Studies in the Gospels: Essays in Memory of R. H. Lightfoot, 
1955, 223-41). Nineham takes up Schmidt’s original position that Mk. is made up 
of disconnected units, claiming that the proposed outline is so brief and the units 
themselves contain so little internal evidence of chronology that a chronological 
arrangement lacks any substantial base (op. cit., 226). With regard to the speeches 
in Acts, Nineham tries to force a dilemma. ‘‘On the one hand, if the speeches in the 
early part of Acts reflect genuine historical reminiscence of what was said by the 
Apostles, then they can afford no evidence for the existence of a formal outline 
account of the ministry; for it can hardly be supposed that the original Apostles 



were dependent on any such traditional outline; they had their own memories. If, 
on the other hand (and this seems more probable to many scholars), these speeches 
were produced by the author of Acts as a general summary of the sort of thing 
likely to have been said, after the Thucydidean model, then the outline of the 
ministry contained in them can have no independent evidential value; for it may 
have been derived by. St. Luke from St. Mark’s gospel, which we know him to 
have had before him. And this point is not affected if it be conceded that St. Luke 
used sources in the compilation of these speeches, for it still remains true, that, 
in the form in which we have them, these speeches have passed through the medium 
of St. Luke’s mind, and St. Luke intended Acts to be read as a complement to the 
gospel he had just finished writing” (op. cit., 229). 

Nineham’s argument is, however, less telling than might appear at first sight. 
The first half of his dilemma has the logical defect of a heads-I-win-tails-you-lose- 
argument, for it dismisses without argument the possibility that the summaries of 
the Acts speeches could be based on “‘genuine historical reminiscence”’ and at the 
same time afford “evidence for the existence of a formal outline account of the 
ministry’. It is an a priori rejection of the possibility that the speeches could be 
both. It further overlooks the fact that the speeches in question are attributed to 
Peter, except that in Acts 13 which is attributed to Paul. What we have is material 
ostensibly based on Peter’s memory giving Peter’s kerygma together with that of 
Paul which (as we have seen above) he claimed to have received on authority and 
to have transmitted faithfully. Nineham’s argument leaves untouched the possibility 
that Peter, either by himself or in conjunction with others, developed a kerygmatic 
outline which formed the core of his proclamation and which was adapted by 
others in the way that Dodd suggests. Furthermore, this could have bearing on 
the interpretation of the testimony of Papias that “‘Mark, indeed, having been the 
interpreter of Peter, wrote accurately, howbeit not in order, all that he recalled 
of what was either said or done by the Lord” (Eusebius, HE 3, 39, 15). Nineham 
has a point of substance when he claims that Mk. does not necessarily give a 
chronological account of the acts of Jesus, but the outline framework of Mk.’s 
Gospel may well reflect the kerygma of Peter. 

The accounts of the preaching in Acts are clearly summaries and do not give 
everything that the speaker said. They also are clearly used by Lk. with an apolo- 
getic intent, having a part in the total purpose and structure of Acts. On the other 
hand, it does not follow from this that they were freely constructed on the model of 
uncritical ancient history, or that they have no independent evidential value. 
There is in Nineham’s argument the same logical defect as before. Any similarity 
with Mk. is assumed to be derived from direct borrowing. The alternative 
possibility that the Gospel and the speeches in Acts might have a common origin 
in the kerygma cannot simply be swept aside because of the fact that they were 
edited in the process. Although the Thucydidean model is frequently appealed to 
by scholars who are content with a low estimate of the historical value of Acts, 
it does not actually support the idea that speeches were irresponsibly composed 
to fill gaps, support the author’s contentions, or to show off his style. Thucydides 
himself wrote: “‘As to the speeches which were made before or during the war, it 
was hard for me, and for others who reported them to me, to recollect the exact 
words. I have therefore put into the mouth of each speaker the sentiments proper 



to the occasion, expressed as I thought he would be likely to express them, while 
at the same time I endeavoured, as nearly as I could, to give the general purport of 
what was actually said”’ (History of the Peloponnesian War 1, 22, 1). The burden 
here is on accuracy rather than rhetoric. If Luke had this model in mind it 
would suggest a conscientious endeavour to give an accurate summary. On the 
other hand, Lk. is more indebted to the OT tradition of historiography tracing the 
activity of God in historical events (cf. I. H. Marshall, Luke: Historian and Theo- 
logian, 1970, 56). Moreover, the Greek of the speeches in Acts seems hardly 
designed to show off the writer’s style; if anything, it is inferior to the rest of Lk.’s 
writings. The absence of Semitisms in the speeches does not settle the matter one 
way or the other (cf. M. Wilcox, The Semitisms of Acts, 1965, 165-71). (Wilcox 
allows that the credal elements in Acts may go back to Gk. written sources, oral 
tradition or Lucan composition, though he himself favours an earlier separate 
existence.) We do, however, have evidence of Lk.’s use of Mk., and where we can 
compare such reproduction of teaching (as in Lk. 21 par. Mk. 13), there is evi- 
dence of editing but not of free invention or substantial change. It is possible that 
the OT quotations in the speeches go back to a book of testimonia. The christology 
of the speeches is relatively primitive, as compared with the developed chris- 
tologies of the later NT epistles. Finally, the reference to the “house of Israel” 
(Acts 2:36) and the hope that Israel as a nation will be saved suggests, an early 

Perhaps it may be added that the speech of Stephen in Acts 7, which reviews 
Israelite history without actually describing the saving events of Christ’s death and 
resurrection, constitutes an interesting commentary on the debate. For this speech 
does not contain the same kerygmatic features as the speeches attributed to Peter 
and Paul. On the other hand, Stephen was not an apostle but belonged to the 
Hellenists (cf. Acts 6:5, 8-15) who constituted a separate group, though his preach- 
ing ministry does not seem to have been confined to any particular group. Paul, 
however, associated himself with the apostles at Jerusalem and even disputed with 
the unbelieving Hellenists (Acts 9:26-30). The different emphases of Paul and 
Stephen would accord with Dodd’s account of the kerygma. Similarly, Paul’s 
Areopagus address in Acts 17 was a deliberate departure from his earlier preaching. 
For whereas the speech of Acts 13: 16-41 was addressed to Jews of the Dispersion 
in the synagogue at Antioch of Pisidia, the Areopagus address was to Greeks. 
The former (like Stephen’s speech) contained a review of Israelite history; the 
latter appealed to Greek beliefs about God. Both, however, contained the themes 
of judgment and resurrection. 

There is a further instance of kerygma in Philip’s encounter with the Ethiopian 
eunuch (Acts 8:26-40) and further examples of Pauline preaching in Paul’s 
address to the elders of Ephesus (Acts 20:17-37) and his defences before Felix 
(Acts 24) and Agrippa (Acts 26), while at Rome Paul is said to have testified to 
the kingdom of God “‘trying to convince them about Jesus from the law of Moses 
and the prophets” (Acts 28:23). This last instance might well sum up the kind of 
preaching that Paul gave in Acts 13, but the other instances are palpably different 
from the Petrine kerygma. The variety of preaching certainly makes it clear that 
Luke did not attempt to reduce all preaching to a uniform pattern. The explanation 
of the differences may be sought in Philip’s case in the fact that the identity of the 



servant was raised by the eunuch (though the fact that the eunuch raised the ques- 
tion of the significance of Isa. 53:7 f. may be an indication that this was already a 
kerygmatic issue). In any case, Philip like Stephen was a Hellenist (Acts 6:6) and 
not one of the Jerusalem apostles. Paul’s preaching to the Ephesian elders was not 
kerygma either to unbelieving Jews or to unbelieving Gentiles; it was teaching for 
the elders. Moreover, Paul’s defences focused on the account of his actions rather 
than the substance of his apologetic. In other words, these instances of preaching 
indicate that the examples of Petrine preaching given in Acts were not typical of all 
preaching. Rather, they lend implicit support to the suggestion that the examples 
considered by Dodd contain the elements of an apologetic directed specifically to 
the Jews focusing on the person of Jesus in the light of salvation history and the 
crisis brought about by Jewish rejection of him. It might be objected that Peter’s 
address to Cornelius does not fall within this category, as Cornelius was a Gentile 
and the address was the occasion for opening the church to Gentile believers. But it 
may be noted that Cornelius was one who worshipped with the Jews (Acts 10:1 ff.), 
and what is given in Acts 10:36-43 is the rationale of the conflict with Judaism, 
which in turn provides the rationale for turning to the Gentiles with the proclama- 
tion of Christ. What is given in the Petrine preaching in Acts is not simply a 
christology, but a christologically interpreted eschatology. The theme of the 
preaching is the eschatological significance of Christ for Israel. 

The above survey has not been able to take into account the wealth of discussion 
of the speeches in Acts. For a recent review see F. F. Bruce, ““The Speeches in 
Acts — Thirty Years After’ (in R. Banks, ed., Reconciliation and Hope: New Testa- 
ment Essays on Atonement and Eschatology Presented to L. L. Morris, 1974, 53-68); 
and see also the works listed in the bibliography below. It is clear that the last 
word on the origin and structure of the kerygma has not yet been said. On the 
other hand, there are grounds for holding with Riesenfeld and Moule that the 
kerygma of missionary preaching, the teaching of the epistles and the Gospel 
accounts of Jesus were not separate compartmentalized activities belonging to 
different phases of the church, but were in fact simultaneous and complementary. 
In the view of the present writer, the argument of Dodd for certain identifiable 
features of the structure of the apostolic kerygma is far from being overthrown, 
though it requires modification and restatement. For the common features dis- 
cerned by Dodd are not common to all the preaching in Acts. Rather, they provide 
a summary of the preaching attributed to Peter which was taken over by Paul in the 
specific context of the conflict of the church with Judaism which focused on the 
identity of Jesus as the messiah in the light of OT testimonia and the Jewish rejec- 
tion of Jesus. Where these factors did not obtain, the preaching took on different 
forms. The absence of explicit ascription of saving significance to the death of 
Christ in the earlier speeches does not lie in Luke’s own theology, but in the 
circumstances of the primitive community. As F. F. Bruce observes: ““That God 
had raised the crucified Jesus to life again was the great new fact which, in their 
eyes, dwarfed all others. The claims of Jesus, disallowed by his judges, had been 
confirmed by God: he was divinely vindicated as both Lord and Messiah, and as 
such he should be acknowledged by the whole house of Israel’? (op. cit., 59). 
Moreover, as Bruce goes on to say (taking up a phrase of J. A. T. Robinson): “‘In 
Acts 3:19-21 we may not have ‘the most primitive Christology of all’, but it 



might well be argued that we do indeed have the most primitive eschatology of all”’ 
(op. cit., 68). C. Brown 
—> Apostle, — Gospel, — Jesus Christ, — Teach, — Word 

(a). E. L. Allen, ‘The Lost Kerygma’” N7S 3, 1956-57, 349-53; P. Althaus, The So-Called 
Kerygma and the Historical Jesus, 1959; W. Baird, ““What is the Kerygma?’’, JBL 76, 1957, 181-91; 
W. Barclay, ‘““A Comparison of Paul’s Missionary Preaching and Preaching to the Church’’, in 
W. W. Gasque and R. P. Martin, eds., Apostolic History and the Gospel: Biblical and Historical 
Essays Presented to F. F. Bruce, 1970, 165-75; R. A. Bartels, Kerygma or Gospel Tradition .. . 
Which Came First ?, 1961; J. W. Bowker, ‘‘Speeches in Acts: A Study in Proem and Yelammedenu 
Form’’, NTS 14, 1967-68, 96-111; C. E. Braaten and R. A. Harrisville, eds., The Historical Jesus 
and the Kerygmatic Christ, 1964; F. F. Bruce, The Speeches in the Acts of the Apostles, 1942; 
The Acts of the Apostles, 19537; ‘‘The Speeches in Acts — Thirty Years After’’, in R. Banks, ed., 
Reconciliation and Hope: New Testament Essays on Atonement and Eschatology Presented to L. L. 
Morris, 1974, 53-68; and Paul and Jesus, 1977; R. Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, I, 
1952, 33-183, 306-14; D. R. Carnegie, ‘“The Kerygma in the Fourth Gospel’’, Vox Evangelica 7, 
1971, 39-74; H. Conzelmann, ‘‘The Address of Paul on the Areopagus’’, in L. E. Keck and J. L. 
Martyn, Studies in Luke-Acts: Essays Presented in Honor of Paul Schubert, 1968, 217-30; O. Cull- 
mann, The Earliest Christian Confessions, 1949; W. D. Davies, ‘“‘Reflections on a Scandinavian 
Approach to ‘The Gospel Tradition’ ”’, in The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount, 1964, 464-80; 
M. Dibelius, From Tradition to Gospel (1934) 1971; ‘“The Speeches in Acts and Ancient Historio- 
graphy”’, in Studies in the Acts of the Apostles, 1956, 138-85; C. H. Dodd, “‘The Framework of the 
Gospel Narrative’, ExpT 43, 1931-32, 396-400 (reprinted in New Testament Studies, 1953, 1-11); 
and The Apostolic Preaching and its Developments, 1936; J. W. Doeve, Jewish Hermeneutics in the 
Synoptic Gospels and Acts, 1954; G. Ebeling, Word and Faith, 1963; Theology and Proclamation, 
1966; and The Word of God and Tradition, 1968; C. F. Evans, ‘““The Kerygma’’, JTS New Series 
7, 1956, 25-41; J. W. Fraser, Jesus and Paul: Paul as Interpreter of Jesus from Harnack to Kimmel, 
1974; G. Friedrich, euangelizomai etc., TDNT II 707-37; and kéryx etc., TDNT III 683-718; 
B. Gerhardsson, Memory and Manuscript: Oral Tradition and Written Transmission in Rabbinic 
Judaism and Early Christianity, Acta Seminarii Neotestamentici Upsaliensis 20, 1964; and Tradition 
and Transmission in Early Christianity, Coniectanea Neotestamentica 20, 1964; T. F. Glasson, 
“The Kerygma: Is Our Version Correct ?”’, Hibbert Journal 51, 1952-53, 129-32; and ‘“‘The Speeches 
in Acts and Thucydides’, ExpT 76, 1964-65, 165; E. Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles, 1971; 
A. J. B. Higgins, ‘“‘The Preface to Luke and the Kerygma in Acts’’, in W. W. Gasque and R. P. 
Martin, eds., op. cit., 78-91; A. M. Hunter, Paul and his Predecessors, 1940; E. Kasemann, 
Essays on New Testament Themes, SBT 41, 1964; and New Testament Questions of Today, 1969; 
J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds, 1950; R. Koch, ‘‘Preaching’’, EBT II 686-93; R. Longe- 
necker, Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period, 1975; R. P. Martin, New Testament Foundations 
I, The Four Gospels, 1975; C. F. D. Moule, ‘Jesus in New Testament Kerygma’’, in O. Bécher 
and K. Haacker, eds., Verborum Veritas. Festschrift fiir Gustav Stahlin, 1970, 15-26; V. H. Neu- 
feld, The Earliest Christian Confessions, New Testament Tools and Studies, 5, 1963; D. E. Nineham, 
‘“‘The Order of Events in St. Mark’s Gospel — an Examination of Dr. Dodd’s Hypothesis’’, in 
D. E. Nineham, ed., Studies in the Gospels: Essays in Memory of R. H. Lightfoot, 1955, 223-41; 
H. Rahner, A Theology of Proclamation, 1968; A. M. Ramsey, ““The Gospel and the Gospels’’, in 
The Gospels Reconsidered: A Selection of Papers read at the International Congress on the Four 
Gospels in 1957, 1960, 99-106; B. Reicke, ‘“‘A Synopsis of Early Christian Preaching’’, in A. 
Fridrichsen et al., The Root of the Vine: Essays in Biblical Theology, 1953, 128-60; H. N. Ridderbos, 
The Speeches of Peter in the Acts of the Apostles, 1961; H. Riesenfeld, “The Gospel Tradition and 
its Beginnings”’, StudEv, I, 1959, 1-29 (printed as a separate paper in 1957); and also in The Gospels 
Reconsidered, 1960, 131-54; and The Gospel Tradition, 1970, 1-29; J. Rohde, Rediscovering the 
Teaching of the Evangelists, 1968; J. Schniewind, angelia etc., TDNT 1 56-73; E. Schweizer, 
‘““Concerning the Speeches in Acts’’, in L. E. Keck and J. L. Martyn, eds., op. cit., 208-16; M. 
Simon, St. Stephen and the Hellenists, 1958; D. M. Stanley, ‘‘The Primitive Preaching: The 
Traditional Schema’’, Concilium 20, 1966, 88-100; N. B. Stonehouse, The Areopagus Address, 
1949 (reprinted in Paul before the Areopagus and Other New Testament Studies, 1957, 1-40); G. N. 
Stanton, Jesus of Nazareth in New Testament Preaching, Society for New Testament Studies 
Monograph Series 27, 1974; J. M. P. Sweet, ‘Second Thoughts VIII. The Kerygma’’, ExpT 76, 



1964-65, 143-47; D. O. Via, Jr., Kerygma and Comedy in the New Testament, 1974; J. J. Vincent, 
‘Didactic Kerygma in the Synoptic Gospels’’, SJT 10, 1957, 262-73; A. N. Wilder, ‘““Kerygma, 
Eschatology and Social Ethics”, in W. D. Davies and D. Daube, eds., The Background of the New 
Testament and its Eschatology: In Honour of Charles Harold Dodd, 1954, 509-36 (reprinted 
separately Facet Books: Social Ethical Series 12, 1966); R. C. Worley, Preaching and Teaching in 
the Earliest Church, 1967. 

(b). R. Asting, Die Verkiindigung des Wortes im Urchristentum, 1939; H. E. Bahr, Verktindigung 
als Information, 1968; T. Boman, Die Jesus-Uberlieferung im Lichte der neueren Volkskunde, 1967; 

R. Bultmann, “Allgemeine Wahrheiten und christliche Verkiindigung’’, ZTK 54, 1957, 244 ff. 
(reprinted in Glauben und Verstehen, III, 1965°, 166 ff.); L. Cerfaux, ‘““Témoins du Christ d’aprés 
le Livre des Actes’, Receuil L. Cerfaux, Il, 1954, 157-74; H. Flender, ‘“‘Lehren und Verkiindigung 
in den synoptischen Evangelien”’, Ev7h 25, 1965, 701 ff.; J. Gewiess, Die Urapostolische Heils- 
verktindigung nach der Apostelgeschichte, 1939; K. Goldammer, “‘Der Kerygma-Begriff in der 
altesten christlichen Literatur’, ZNW 48, 1957, 77-101; E. Grasser, ““Von der Exegese zur Predigt’’, 
WuD 60, 1971, 27 ff.; D. Grasso, “I] kerygma e la predicazione’’, Gregorianum 41, 1960, 424-50; 
and L’ Annuncio della Salvezza, 1965; J. Herrmann, “‘Kerygma und Kirche”, in Neutestamentliche 
Aufsdtze, Festschrift J. Schmid, 1963, 110-14; P. Hitz, L’Annonce Missionnaire de I’ Evangile, 1954; 
G. Hummel, ed., Aufgabe der Predigt, Wege der Forschung, 1971; W. Jetter, ‘““Die Predigt als 
Gesprach mit dem Horer’’, Praktische Theologie 56, 1967, 212 ff.; K. Kertelge, ‘““Verkiindigung 
und Amt im Neuen Testament”, Bul 10, 1969, 189 ff.; E. Lerle, Die Predigt im Neuen Testament, 
19572; K. E. Logstrup, “Verkiindigung”’, RGG?® VI 155 ff.; F. W. Marquardt, ‘‘Geschichte und 
kirchliche Verkiindigung’’, in Antwort. Karl Barth zum siebzigsten Geburtstag, 1956, 620-29; 
H. Ott, ““Kerygma’’, RGG? III 1250-54; A. Rétif, ““Qu’est-ce que le Kérygme?’’ Nouvelle Revue 
Théologique 81,1949, 910-22; ““Témoignageet Prédication Missionnaire dans les Actes des Ap6tres’’, 
ibid. 83, 1951, 152-65; and Foi au Christ et Mission d’aprés les Actes des Apétres, 1952; H. Ristow 
and K. Matthiae, eds. Der historische Jesus und der kerygmatische Christus, 19627; J. Roloff, 
Apostolat, Verkiindigung, Kirche, 1965; and Das Kerygma und der irdische Jesus, 1970; H. Schlier, 
‘*Kerygma und Sophia”, EvTh 11, 1950-51, 181 ff. (reprinted in Die Zeit der Kirche, 1956, 206 ff.); 
and Wort Gottes, 1962?; K. L. Schmidt, Der Rahmen der Geschichte Jesu. Literarische Unter- 
suchungen zur altesten Jesusiiberlieferung (1919), 1964; H. Schtirmann, Aufbau und Struktur der 
neutestamentlichen Verkiindigung 1954; and “Kerygma”’, LTK VI 122-25; K. Stendahl, ‘“‘Kerygma 
und kerygmatisch”, TLZ 77, 1952, 715-20; A. Strobel, Kerygma und Apokalyptik, 1967; U. 
Wilckens, “‘Kerygma und Evangelium bei Lukas”, ZNW 49, 1958, 223-37; and Die Missionsreden 
der Apostelgeschichte. Form- und traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen, 1961. 

; ; énayyédAopal (epangellomai), announce, proclaim, pro- 
| évcayyedia : 
mise, profess; zpoenayyédAopai (proepangellomai), an- 
nounce before, promise before; ézayyedia (epangelia), announcement, promise; 
émayyedua (epangelma), announcement, notification, promise. 

CL |. epangellomai and epangelia are derived from the root angel-, as are euangeli- 
zomai and euangelion (—> Gospel). In classical Gk. (the active form is attested 
in Homer) they are originally synonymous with other words from the same root 
(e.g. other compounds of angellé, like an-, apangelld), and mean respectively to 
announce, proclaim (Hdt. 3, 36), and announcement, report. In the context of 
state proclamations they denote summoning (e.g. Polybius, 9, 38, 2). In legal 
usage the noun means notification of a charge (Aeschines, 1, 64). In the mid. the 
vb. means to announce one’s accomplishments, to make a profession (Xen., 
Mem. 1, 2, 7), or to take up a moral position. 
2. The nearest point of contact to the NT usage of these terms is in the meaning 
to announce an intention, to offer to do something, to promise, to vow (e.g. 



Polybius, 1, 72, 6). It is significant that, when they are used in this sense, it is never 
the gods who promise something to men, but only men to gods. The Gks. were very 
conscious of the tension between human promises and their fulfilment. In this 
connexion, the word often carries the specific sense of a promise of money. Charac- 
teristically, in the whole of the Eastern Hellenistic world, the concept became a 
technical term for a free-will payment, gift or endowment (F. Hiller, /nschriften 
von Priene, 1906, 123, 5 ff.). ho epangeilamenos (lit: the one who promised) thus 
means the founder. In early Hellenistic usage hé epangelia can also mean the 
proclamation of a feast (cf. TDNT II 578). 

oT Unlike evangelion, good news (— Gospel), epangelia has no Heb. equivalent. 
The LXX uses the word in Est. 4:7 to render the Heb. pdrasdah, exact statement, 
information. | 

1. (a) Despite the absence of a special term for it, the OT is of course familiar 
with the concept. G. von Rad attempts to show how “from Abraham to Malachi, 
Israel was kept constantly in motion because of what God said and did, and 
that she was always in one way or other in an area of tension constituted by promise 
and fulfilment’? (Old Testament Theology, II, 1965, 371). In some cases the ful- 
filment of certain promises is painstakingly recorded (e.g. Jos. 21:43-45; 23:14; 
‘“‘not one thing has failed of all the good things which the Lord your God promised 
concerning you; all have come to pass for you’’). But generally the fulfilment — 
appears as a partial or token fulfilment, which does not reveal the whole of the 
divine plan. Hence Israel is compelled in every new situation of his history to 
reinterpret the old promises, and is called to new expectancy by new proclamations 
of salvation (for details —- Word, art. Jogos, oT). 

Basic to the theme of Israel’s existence under promise is Gen. 12: 1-3. ““Now the 
Lorp said to Abram, ‘Go from your country and your kindred and your father’s 
house to the land that I will show you. And I will make of you a great nation, and 
I will bless you, and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. I will 
bless those who bless you, and him who curses you I will curse; and by you will 
all the families of the earth bless themselves.’ ’’ There is here a triple promise of the 
land, a great nation, and blessing (on the development of these themes — Earth, 
Land; cf. also W. D. Davies, The Gospel and the Land: Early Christianity and 
Jewish Territorial Doctrine, 1974; > Abraham; — Israel; —> People — Bless). 
Gen. develops the promise of the nation through the story of Isaac (> Abraham), 
the wanderings of Abraham and his descendants, and the — covenant theme (Gen. 
17). In Jer. 31:31-34 there is the promise of a new covenant. This was at a time of 
national collapse, when the whole idea of surviving in the promised land was 
problematic. The central idea of the new covenant is that of the law written on the 
heart (cf. also Ezek. 18: 1-32 and 36:26—37 which couples a new spirit and heart 
with national restoration). The teaching of the prophets consists of promises of — 
judgment and — grace, culminating in the promises of the Servant Songs of Isaiah 
(Isa. 42: 1-4; 49: 1-6; 50:4-9; 52: 13-53: 12; — Serve). The promises of return from 
exile and sustenance in calamity of the later chapters of Isa. renew the exodus theme 
(cf. Exod. 3:24 f.; 12:1 ff; 15:1 ff.; Hos. 11:1; Isa. 40: 1-31). But as in Gen. 12:3, 
there is also a theme of blessing which will extend beyond Israel, so that Yahweh 
promises that the servant will be ‘‘a light to the nations” (Isa. 49:6). And as early 



as Isa. 2:24 and Mic. 4:1-—3 there is the prophecy of the nations flowing to the 
mountain of the house of the Lord so that they may learn the ways of Yahweh 
in peace and righteousness. 

(b) The OT records various vows made by the righteous (— Swear). But while 
the law and the prophets demand faithfulness in personal dealings (Exod. 20:15 f.; 
Deut. 27:19; Hos. 4:1 f.; Mic. 6:8), human promises are ultimately secondary to 
the promises of God. In the last analysis it is he alone that can both promise and 
fulfil, for he alone knows and overrules the whole of the future. 

2. (a) Jewish writers in the Gk. language (Macc. in the LXX, Philo, etc.) adopted 
Hellenistic usage. Thus they use epangellomai in the ordinary sense of promise 
(e.g. money, 1 Macc. 11:28). But they also prepare the way for Paul’s use of epan- 
gelia for God’s activity. In 3 Macc. 2:10 God promises to answer prayer. 

(b) In rabbinic writings b°tahGh is used as a description of the promises of God. 
This word is not found in the OT, but it is derived from the root batah, to trust, 
which is frequent in the MT, and thus emphasizes the trustworthiness of the pro- 
mises of salvation (cf. SB III 207 ff.). The reference is often to the promises made 
to the patriarchs (the making of the people, the conquest of the land). 

(c) With the appearance of apocalyptic, interest is strongly attracted to the 
‘6lam habb@’, the world to come (e.g. 2 Esd. 7: 119), and the warning “‘to make sure 
that one will be a son (daughter) of the world to come’’ is frequently found (e.g. 
Berakoth 4b). At the same time assurance of salvation is considerably dampened by 
the doctrine that a part in the salvation to come is dependent on strict observance 
of the — law. 

NT 1. General Review. (a) epangellomai, to promise, is found 15 times in the NT, 

but only in 4 instances is it used of human promises (Mk. 14:11, the offer of 
money to Judas; 2 Pet. 2:19, the promise of a false freedom by heretics; 1 Tim. 
6:21, the profession of false teachings; 1 Tim. 2:10, the profession of theosebeia, 
fear of God). It is not found in a theological sense either in the Gospels, 1 Pet., Jude 
or Rev. Acts and 1 Jn. have it only once each. Most of the instances are in the 
Pauline corpus (5), Heb. (4), and Jas. (2). 

(b) proepangellomai means to announce beforehand, to promise beforehand. In 
the NT it is found just twice (in Paul’s writings): in 2 Cor. 9:5 he speaks of tén pro- 
epéngelmenén eulogian hymon (the vb. is passive in meaning here), the blessing 
which you have promised in advance (i.e. the collection; — Poor, art. ptochos, 
NT 4); and in Rom. 1:2 Paul refers to the gospel of God which he promised before- 
hand (proepéngeilato) in the old covenant by his prophets in the scriptures. 

(c) epangelia, found 52 times, is used only once in a secular sense; the noun is 
used absolutely 33 times, most of these instances being in Paul; the sing. form 1s 
greatly predominant, but in 11 instances the plur. occurs. epangelia is not found in 
Matt., Mk., Jn., Jas., Jude or Rev. It is found once in 1 Jn., twice in 2 Pet., but 9 
times in the Lucan writings (once in the Gospel; 8 times in Acts), 26 times in the 
Pauline corpus and 14 times in Heb. As in classical Gk., so also in the NT, epangelia 
can refer either to form or to content, words of promise, or things promised, 
though the distinction is not always clear in every case. It is clear that it is the thing 
promised to which reference is made in passages like Lk. 24:49; Acts 1:4; and 
likewise Heb. 11:33 and 39. 



(d) epangelma in classical Gk. means announcement, order, promise. In the NT 
its meaning cannot be distinguished from that of epangelia. It is used only twice 
(in 2 Pet.). The aim of the letter being to stir up the hope of the return of Christ at a 
time when it was flagging, the concept of promise is restricted to this event and the 
subsequent new creation of heaven and earth: “But according to his promise [kata 
to epangelma autou| we wait for new heavens and a new earth in which righteous- 
ness dwells’’ (2 Pet. 3:13). Since this consummation brings with it a share in eternal 
life and a partaking of the theia physis, divine nature (NEB “the very being of 
God’’), the author calls the promises which point to it “precious and very great” 

(e) The absence of the words of this group from the Gospels (with the exception 
of Mk. 14:11 and Lk. 24:49) is to be explained by the fact that the Gospels tell 
of Jesus’ words and deeds, but rarely reflect upon them. Moreover, where they do 
so, they are interested in the continuity between God’s word of old and his word 
now. Thus they interpret Christ in terms of the OT, as in the case of Lk. 4:21: 
“Today this scripture has been fulfilled [sémeron peplérdtai hé graphé hauté| in 
your hearing”’ (referring to Isa. 61:1 f.; cf. the Matthean introductory formula 
for OT citations, hina plérothé, “that it might be fulfilled’’). Thus in spite of the 
absence of the term epangelia, the Gospels (especially Matt.) do deal with the cate- 
gory of promise and fulfilment (— Fullness, art. plérod, NT). 

2. Theological Exposition. The theological significance of the concept is worked 
out particularly in three groups of NT writings: Luke—Acts, the Pauline letters, 
and Heb. 

(a) Luke—Acts. (i) The giver of the promise is, as elsewhere in the NT, God alone, 
“the God of glory” (Acts 7:5; cf. 7:2 for the subject), “‘the Father’ (Lk. 24:49; 
Acts 1:4). The promise provides insight into his plan of salvation, and carries 
with it the future realization of that plan, so that the fulfilment is a creative act 
(Acts 13:32 f.: he has fulfilled [ekpepléroken] it in sending Jesus). 

(ii) The recipients of the promise are “‘the fathers” (13: 32) especially — Abraham 
(7:17), > Israel as the covenant people (13:23), the — disciples of Jesus (Lk. 
24:49; Acts 1:4), the hearers of Peter’s sermon at — Pentecost with their children, 
and those living far away from Jerusalem (2:38 f.). It is through Israel that Gentiles 
first hear the promise. 

(iii) The content of the promise is the historical sending of Jesus as the sdtér, 
saviour (13:23, 32 f.; 26:6). Because he, the crucified and risen one, has wrought 
forgiveness of sins, all those who turn to him in faith and are baptized in his name 
receive the Holy — Spirit, the promised gift of God in the last days (2:38—40; cf. 
2:17-21; and 2:32-36). | 

(iv) By being fulfilled (— Fullness, art. p/éro6), the promise (epangelia) becomes 
the good news, the —> gospel (euangelion). Acts 13:32 uses the vb. euangelizesthai, 
to bring good news, to describe Paul’s testimony to the fulfilment of the promise. 

(b) Paul. It is Paul who gives the most emphatic testimony that the epangelia is a 
gift of God’s free grace. God alone has the absolute power to fulfil his word of 
promise (Rom. 4:21). For he is the God “‘who gives life to the dead and calls into 
existence the things that do not exist” (Rom. 4:17). He is ho apseudés theos, the 
God who cannot lie (Tit. 1:2). 

(i) In his struggle against mixing the gospel with Jewish legalism, Paul thought 



through the question of the relation between God’s law and his promises, his 
demands and his bountiful grace. In answer to the Jewish theory, that man can 
come to enjoy the promised salvation only on the basis of prior fulfilment of all 
the duties required by the law, the apostle set out in antithetical form three basic 
insights afforded by the gospel. 

It is not the law which makes us recipients of the word of promise and its 
fulfilment, but justifying grace: ou dia nomou hé epangelia to Abraam é to spermati 
autou, to kléronomon auton einai ton kosmon, alla dia dikaiosynés pisteos, “‘not 
through the law did the promise come to Abraham or his descendants, that 
he should inherit the world, but through the righteousness of faith” (Rom. 4:13). 
Since the law can make no man “alive” to God (zdopoiésai), i.e. enable him to do 
the will of God, the law and the promise are in reality opposites. “‘For if the inheri- 
tance is by the law, it is no longer by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a 
promise [t6 de Abraam di’ epangelias kecharistai ho theos|’” (Gal. 3:18). “Is the law 
then against the promises of God? Certainly not; for if a law had been given which 
could make alive, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. But the scripture 
consigned all things to sin, that what was promised to faith in Jesus Christ might be 
given to those who believe”’ (Gal. 3:21 f.). 

Law and promise can neither limit nor supplement one another, since the 
law demands works, whereas faith is neither a work of man nor a legalistic achieve- 
ment. If those who make the law into a way of salvation were able by doing so to 
become “heirs”, then faith would be null and the promise void (Rom. 4:14). 

The example of Abraham shows in any case that the law cannot be a condi- 
tion for the reception of the promise or substance of salvation, since Abraham 
lived before the law was given. The promise to Abraham is the characteristic type 
of all other promises. But it was given centuries before the revelation of the law, 
and the law must certainly not be interpreted as an added clause by means of 
which God might invalidate the binding nature of his promises, as a man might 
add a clause to his will. Thus Paul uses the picture of a diathéké, will, — covenant, 
in Gal. 3: 15-18, to emphasize the irrevocability of God’s promises. 

This note of assurance is not-weakened by the ethical imperatives of the NT. 
2 Cor. 7:1 makes it clear that it is not our sanctification which brings about the 
fulfilment of the promises; rather, the promises have a sanctifying effect upon the 
way we live. 

Gi) For Paul it is fundamental that all God’s promises have een given his “‘yes”’ 
in Christ (2 Cor. 1:20). The sending of Jesus, and all that he did, is God’s active 
ratification of all his promises of salvation. Christ’s ministry to Israel demonstrated 
God’s alétheia, truthfulness (— Truth), and took place in order to. confirm the 
promise given to the patriarchs (Rom. 15:8). By dying in our place under the curse 
with which the law threatens every transgressor, he prepared the way for the send- 
ing of the Holy — Spirit. He died “‘that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham 
might come upon the Gentiles, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit 
through faith” (Gal. 3:14). 

Although in a wider context dikaiosyné (— righteousness), hyiothesia (sonship), 
and kléronomia (inheritance) might be mentioned first, it is nonetheless strictly 
speaking the Holy Spirit who is chiefly spoken of as the promised gift of salvation 
(so Gal. 3:14; cf. also Eph. 1:3). The three images of aparché (first fruits), arrabon 



(deposit), and sphragis (seal) are used to emphasize the certainty of salvation. In 
view of the close association of the Holy Spirit with eternal life, it is not surprising 
that in Tit. 1:2 “eternal life’? is mentioned as the substances of the promise. 

(iii) Historically, Israel is the first to receive the promise. The ethné, Gentiles, 
Originally stood outside the promise, tied as it was to the covenant order (Eph. 

In Gal. 3:16 Paul interprets to sperma tou Abraam, “‘the seed of Abraham’’, not 
collectively but in the singular, as referring to one individual, Christ. He is the 
universal heir; believers are only synkléronomoi Christou, co-heirs with Christ. 
Since, however, it is not physical descent from Abraham, but faith in Jesus Christ, 
that makes us entitled to the inheritance, believers from among the Gentiles are 
also “fellow heirs . . . and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus’’ (Eph. 3:6). 

(c) Hebrews. The situation to which this letter is addressed differs from that of 
the Pauline churches. The question of the relation of law to promise plays no part 
here; faith itself is in danger. Doubt is being expressed as to whether the promises 
will be fulfilled at all. The purpose of the letter is therefore to call its readers to 
hold fast to the promises, and to testify to God’s faithfulness to his word. . 

(i) The writer has in mind a “‘cloud of witnesses” (12:1) who have borne witness 
to the character and depth of their faith both by divine interventions in their lives, 
and by personal hypomoné, steadfastness (— Patience). As believers they lived out 
their lives on the basis of the divine promises, and with the same promises as their 
goal. Mention is made of the men and women of faith in the early history of Israel: 
Abraham (6:12 ff.; 7:6), Isaac and Jacob (“heirs with him of the same promise’, 
11:6), Sarah (11:11). Chapter 11 mentions, along with the judges, Samuel, David, 
and generally “‘the prophets’, as people who experienced the promised help of 
God. In Heb. 4:1-9 the example of Israel in the — wilderness is used to make it 
clear that unbelief makes fulfilment of the promises impossible (cf. Ps. 95:11; — 
Rest). | 

(ii) The content of the promises mentioned in Heb. is the blessing of multitudin- 
ous descendants (6:14), rest (katapausis), and the new covenant, which on’ the 
basis of the remission of sins holds out the prospect of “the eternal inheritance”’ 

At the same time Heb. emphasizes that in the old covenant the promises neither 
were nor could be completely fulfilled. When it is said of Abraham in 6:15 that 
“*he obtained the promise’’, the reference is still to no more than a partial fulfilment 
(the birth of Isaac). In the final analysis the promises are interpreted in terms of the 
gospel, and therefore as referring to complete salvation in Christ (cf. 4:2). Thus 
the writer declares in 11:39 that the whole cloud of witnesses who came before 
Christ have been made to wait: “‘they did not receive what was promised.” For 
this reason he ascribes to the patriarchs an understanding of the promise which 
looks far beyond all historical foreshadowings and partial fulfilments, to an eternal 
consummation (11:10—-16). 

The keyword kreitton, better, which is found 12 times, is used to describe the 
superiority of the new covenant to the old (~ Good). Christ is the “‘mediator of a 
better covenant ... enacted on better promises’’ (8:6). Jeremiah’s promise of a 
new covenant is cited twice, indicating that by the better promises we should 
understand full forgiveness, deep knowledge of God, and a Spirit-worked obedience 



to his commandments (Heb. 8:8-12 = Jer. 31:31-34; Heb. 10:16 f. = Jer. 
31:33 f.). Yet the content of the promises also includes all the other aspects of 
eternal, eschatological salvation, such as the unshakeable — kingdom (12:28), the 
future city (13:14), and the — sabbath for the — people of God (4:9). 

The new covenant has been brought into operation by the death of Jesus. This 
means that the fulfilment of the promises is drawing steadily nearer. ““You see the 
Day drawing near” (10:25). “Yet a little while, and the coming one shall come and 
shall not tarry” (10:37; cf. Isa. 26:20 LXX). It is, therefore, all the more necessary 
to remain steadfast during the short time that remains, not to cast away one’s 
parrhésia, confidence (— Openness), and to “‘hold fast the confession of our hope 
without wavering”’ (10:23, cf. v. 35). As far as God is concerned, the promises 
remain unbreakable. They are an oath of God (6:13). This makes it all the more 
important for the members of the people of God to observe the exhortation to 
hold fast to the promises for their part (6:11 f.). E. Hoffmann 
—> Covenant, — Fullness, — Hope, — Prophet 

(a). I. Blythin, ‘“The Patriarchs and the Promise’, S/T 21, 1965, 56 ff.; J. Bright, Covenant and 
Promise: The Future in the Preaching of the Pre-exilic Prophets, 1977; F. F. Bruce, ed., Promise 
and Fulfilment: Essays Presented to Professor S. H. Hooke, 1963; R. Bultmann, ‘“‘Prophecy and 
Fulfilment’’, in Essays Philosophical and Theological, 1955, 182-208; W. D. Davies, The Gospel and 
the Land: Early Christianity and Jewish Territorial Doctrine, 1974; A. T. Hanson, “Birth with 
Promise”, Studies in Paul’s Technique and Theology, 1974, 87-103; J. Jeremias, Jesus’ Promise to 
the Nations, SBT 24, W. G. Kiimmel, Promise and Fulfilment: The Eschatological Message of 
Jesus, SBT 23, 19617; J. Moltmann, “‘Promise and History’, in Theology of Hope: On the Ground 
and the Implications of Christian Eschatology, 1967, 95-138; G. von Rad, Old Testament Theology, 
I, 1962; II, 1965; J. Schniewind and G. Friedrich, epangelld etc., TDNT II 576-86; C. Westermann, 
“The Way of Promise through the Old Testament’’, in B. W. Anderson, ed., The Old Testament 
and Christian Faith, 1964, 200-24; C. Westermann, ed., Essays on Old Testament Interpretation, 
1963. . 

(b). F. Baumgartel, Verheissung, 1954; F. W. Marquardt, Die Bedeutung der biblischen Landver- 
heissungen fiir die Christen, ThEH Neue Folge 116, 1964; G. Sauter, Zukunft und Verheissung, 
1965; C. Westermann, ‘‘Verheissungen an Israel’’, EKL III 1645 ff.; W. Zimmerli, “‘“Verheissung 
und Erfiillung’, Ev7h 12, 1952-53, 6 ff. (reprinted in Probleme alttestamentlicher Hermeneutik, 
ThB 11, 19683, 69 ff.). 


| mpodifenc | mpobdytnc (prophétés), prophet, proclaimer; mpodftic 
(prophétis), prophetess; mpodntebm (prophéteud), make 

prophetic revelations, prophesy; zpodyteia (prophéteia), prophetic activity, 

prophetic gift, prophetic word, prophetic saying; mzpo@ytikdc (prophétikos), 

prophetic; wevdonpodytyc (pseudoprophétés), false prophet; wavtevopal (man- 
teuomai), foretell, utter oracles, prophesy. 

CL. 1. (a) prophétés (Pindar, Nemeans 1, 60:9, 50; and Hdt., 8, 36 f., 135) is a noun 

made up of the stem -phé-, to say, proclaim, which always has a religious conno- 
tation, and the prefix pro-, which as a temporal adv. has the meaning of before, in 
advance. This may suggest the meaning: one who predicts, one who tells beforehand. 
It appears to be confirmed by the use of prophémi, to predict, proclaim in advance. 
However, prophémi is not found until very late, and so has no value as etymological 
evidence. Indeed, when one examines the combination of pro- with vbs. of speech 



in earlier writings, it is evident that in no case does the object of the vb. point to the 
future. Several other vbs. are found: proagoreuo (Hdt., 3, 61 f.; Thuc., 2, 13); 
prolegé (Hdt., 8, 136; Thuc. 1, 139); prophdned (Eur., Hippolytus 956). The meaning 
of these vbs. is clearly to proclaim openly, to state publicly, to proclaim aloud. 
This suggests that prophéteuo should be translated in the same way. This is corro- 
borated by the use, found as early as the 5th century, of prophétés in the sense of 
declarer, speaker (Pindar, Paean 6, 6; Eur., Bacchae 211). The religious flavour 
of the stem -phé- gives the word a special weight, and expresses the authority 
which can be claimed for the prophet’s word. 

(b) From this noun are derived the fem. prophétis (Eur., Jon 42, 321), the noun 
prophéteia (not found before 2nd century A.D.), and the corresponding adj. pro- 
phétikos and vb. prophéteud (Pindar, Fragment 150). 

2. The nature of the Gk. prophet is more easily ascertained from his place in 
public life than from etymological considerations. The words derived from this 
root are firmly tied up with the Gk. oracle. The most famous oracle was that of 
Delphi, presided over by Apollo (on this see especially H. W. Parke and D. E. W. 
Worrell, The Delphic Oracle, I-II, 1956). In this connexion we meet the words in 
two senses. 

The Pythia was called prophétis, but had the further title of promantis (Eur., 
Ion 681; Hdt., 6. 66). This office belonged originally to one, two or three girls 
drawn from the local population, but in later times at least the Pythia was elderly. 
The Pythia sat on a tripod over a cavity in the earth, from which an “oracular 
spirit’’ (pneuma mantikon) in the form of smoke arose and gave her the inspiration. 
This was enhanced by the chewing of bay-leaves (Apollo’s plant). As a result she 
would burst out with enigmatic inarticulate sounds, similar to glossolalia (— 
Word, art. glossa). These concerned future events, as the title promantis suggests, 
and had a direct connexion with the person consulting the oracle, who came to it 
baffled by a problem about which he sought help in the form of instruction. He 
would present in writing a question which had arisen in his own life. Such questions 
might concern matters of business, religion, politics, ethics or education, and in 
them we find reflected the whole range of life in the ancient world. 

Since, however, the Pythia’s reply was usually incomprehensible to the visitor, 
there was need for other officials at the shrine, whose task it was to translate the 
utterance into a saying that could be clearly understood and remembered. The task 
was carried out by wise and highly respected old men, called to this position by the 
oracle, and likewise known as “prophets”. They did not work by direct inspiration; 
had they done so, they would have been given the further title of mantis. Instead, 
their transmission of the message involved the use of their understanding (/ogismos). 
They received the Pythian oracles, tested them, completed them, interpreted them 
and formulated the final saying. Thus they never spoke on their own initiative, but 
only after a visitor had presented a question and the Pythia had uttered the oracle. 
(On the oracle of Delphi, which may be regarded as typical, cf. Plato, Timaeus 
71e-72b. It should be noted that Plato idealizes the prophet to fit his philosophical 
concepts.) As an example, we may take the question put to the Delphic oracle by 
the Spartan Glaucus (Hdt., 6, 86). A stranger had deposited some money with him. 
If he committed perjury, he would be able to appropriate the sum himself. Might 
he, therefore, commit perjury? The prophetic response was that he could afford 



this act of perjury, and that such a thing would never happen again. It might appear 
that he was not punished; but the false oath would pursue him (— Curse). If it did 
not fall upon him, it would upon his children and his children’s children. It would 
not rest until the whole family was destroyed. 

From this example we may note the following basic features: 

(a) The prophet expresses something for the content of which he is not respons- 
ible, since he has himself received it indirectly from the god. Where the inspiration 
is direct, a privilege reserved at Delphi at least solely for the Pythia, the prophet 
has the further title of mantis. Thus the Pythia bore the title of promantis in addition 
to that of prophet. Indirect inspiration comes through the inarticulate utterances 
of a Pythia, or through symbdola such as the blowing of the wind, the rustling of the 
sacred oaks, the clanging of cymbals, or the shaking of an image of a god borne by 
priests. The prophets are thus “interpreters of mysterious utterances and visions” 
(Plato, Timaeus 72b). 

(b) The prophet does not give advice unless he is asked for it. The initiative is 
the questioner’s alone, not the god’s or the prophet’s. 

(c) For this reason the words of the Gk. prophet are always addressed to a 
unique, historical, concrete, present situation in the life of the client. The advice 
then given embraces the whole range of counselling help which is called for, even 
up to the present day, by the troubles and needs of men and women. 

(d) The prophet is called to his office by the oracular institution, and so not by a 

To sum up, a prophet is a person, employed by the oracle, who by direct inspira- 
tion or by the interpretation of sounds and omens declares the will of the gods to a 
person who asks for advice. Accordingly, prophéteuo means to proclaim the counsel 
and will of the gods concerning a historical, concrete, present situation, in response 
to a definite question put by the client. 

3. In early times the poet also has the title of prophet (Pindar, Paean 6, 6; cf. 
Homer, //., 1, 1; 2, 484-492), since he achieves in his poetry something which is 
otherwise impossible to mortals, and must therefore derive his wisdom, his sophia, 
from the gods (Pindar, Paean 7b, 11-15). 

4. The prophet must be clearly distinguished from the soothsayer (mantis, seer, 
soothsayer). Admittedly, both titles can be held by one person (see above), but they 
refer to very different functions. If it is etymologically correct to say that mantis 
is derived from mainomai, to rage, to be out of one’s senses, to be in ecstasy, it 
may suggest that the soothsayer is in origin one who makes a proclamation from 
or in a state of ecstasy. The prophet, on the other hand, speaks “‘with his reason’’. 
His divination is mediate, i.e. he receives his information from the gods through a 
medium (e.g. the Pythia). 

The content of soothsaying, as in the case of prophecy, is never a timeless truth 
of universal validity, but a message directed to definite, individual events. Unlike 
prophecy, which sometimes deals with religious matters, soothsayimg never con- 
cerns this realm (Plato, Charmides 173c). Soothsaying foretells future events, while 
prophecy is aimed at correcting a person’s behaviour in view of events which may 
be expected. The chief impulse behind soothsaying is human curiosity (cf. J. 
Haeckel in L. Adam and H. Trimborn, eds., Lehrbuch der Volkerkunde, 1958, 



oT 1. The Heb. word for prophet, ndbi’, is usually derived from the Akkad. vb. 

nabi, to call, to proclaim. In the past, therefore, most scholars saw the ety- 
mology as parallel to the Gk. and understood the word in the active sense, one 
who calls, forth-teller, preacher (cf. H.-J. Kraus, Worship in Israel, 1966, 102). 
However, a parallel development in the Akkad. indicates that nabi’ should be 
understood not actively but passively; one called, one appointed (W. F. Albright, 
From the Stone Age to Christianity, [1940] 1957, 303 ff.). Behind the passive form 
stands God as the agent, here the one who calls. Later nabi’ became a technical 
term, and the literal meaning was forgotten. 

From this noun the vb. ndba’ is derived, which means to show, present, or express 
oneself, to speak as a prophet. It is found in hith. and niph. In early texts the domi- 
nant use is in the hith., meaning to behave as a prophet, implying adopting ecstatic 
behaviour. In later texts the niph. predominates, and is in most cases to be trans- 
lated to speak prophetically (1 Sam. 10:5 f., 10 ff.; 19:20; 1 Ki. 22:10, 12). This 
point is corroborated by a second observation: the vb. is found among the earlier 
writing prophets only in Amos, and in none of the later ones but Jer., Ezek., Joel 
and Zech. This may suggest that in early times prophecy was dominated by ecstatic 
behaviour which later became suspect. Later still (from Jer. onwards) the vb. no 
longer suggested ecstasy and could be used without embarrassment. 

(a) The noun nab?’ is found in the OT 309 times, of which 92 instances are found 
in Jer. alone. The plur. signifies in the historical books groups of prophets; the 
sing. in early texts widely varying types of person, in later texts only, one who 
speaks on behalf of Yahweh. In earlier texts, the prophet can also have the title 
"tS ha@’’lohim, man of God, or ré’eh or hdzeh, seer. Man of God seems to be a title 
of distinction, which is also given to great leaders: ~ Moses (Deut. 33:1), — 
David (Neh. 12:24, 36 etc.), but above all Elisha (29 times), and the unnamed 
prophet of Judah in 1 Ki. 13:1-31 (15 times). This title expresses the close as- 
sociation of the person concerned with God. 

The seer has the ability to reveal hidden secrets and future events (1 Sam. 9:6- 
20). With him the emphasis is on visions, with the prophet rather on his words 
(Isa. 30:10). 

(b) Various figures in the history of Israel were given the title of nabi. They 
include > Abraham (Gen. 20:7), Moses (Deut. 34:10) and Aaron (Exod. 7:1). 
Miriam received the title of prophetess (Exod. 15:20), which is doubtless linked 
with the Song of Moses at the Red Sea which was used as a cultic hymn (see below 
2 (c)). 

2. Before the fully-fledged prophecy of the so-called writing prophets took shape 
certain earlier forms are found in the OT. 

(a) One of these is the appearance of groups of ecstatics who moved freely about 
the country, putting themselves by the use of musical instruments into a state of 
trance, and in such a condition babbling out their messages (cf. the phenomena in 
the NT period in 1 Cor. 14). This — ecstasy was infectious, so that Saul also came 
to be counted ‘‘among the prophets’ (1 Sam. 10:5 ff.; cf. 19:18 ff.). The prophets 
of Baal were also ecstatics (1 Ki. 18: 19-40). The ecstatic who could temporarily 
become ‘“‘another man” (1 Sam. 10:6) constituted a certain attraction for the 
Israelites (1 Sam. 10:5). But on other occasions these ‘‘mad fools” (Hos. 9:7) 
repelled them. In Num. 11:10-30, where the 70 elders were seized by the Spirit 



of God and went into an ecstasy, it is related that Joshua was critical. However, 
Moses replied: ‘““Would that all the Lord’s people were prophets, that Yahweh 
would put his spirit upon them!” (Num. 11:29). This is interpreted by some 
scholars as the attempt of the Elohist, by the inclusion of this story in the Mosaic 
tradition, to introduce the strange, repellent, un-Israelite phenomenon of ecstatic 
prophecy into the worship of Yahweh. Thus, G. von Rad comments: “The end 
which the story tries to serve is therefore that of the legitimation of this new 
religious phenomenon which may have caused the orthodox a good deal of 
perplexity. The story may actually be taken as evidence of an acceptance of the 
ecstatic movement into the institutions of Jahwism, or at least as an etiology of 
the prophetic movement which gave it legitimation”’ (Old Testament Theology, II, 
1965, 19). 

(b) Another early form is that of groups of prophets in monastic communities. 
These groups formed themselves around a prominent figure (e.g. Elisha, 2 Ki. 
2:3 ff.; 4:38; 6:1), whom they addressed as ‘“‘master”’ or ‘‘father’’, at whose feet they 
sat and learned, and with whom they lived in communal dwellings. — Elijah and 
Elisha were heads of separate bands of prophets (2 Ki. 2:1 ff.). Such groups are 
always found in connexion with a sanctuary (1 Ki. 13:11, Bethel; 2 Ki. 2:1, 4, 5, 
Gilgal, Jericho). Ecstasy has here a markedly reduced réle (traces may be found 
at 2 Ki. 3:15). Instead, the gift of the Spirit seems to be manifested rather by the 
working of — miracles (2 Ki. 2: 19-22; 2:23-25; 4: 1-7, 18-37). Even these popular 
accounts, however, with their emphasis on miraculous deeds, reveal that Elisha 
was also a man of the word, who gave both spiritual (2 Ki. 4: 1-7, 8-37; 5:1-14) 
and political counsel (2' Ki. 13:14 ff., ‘“The chariots of Israel and its horsemen”’; cf. 
6:12; 8:7-15). 

(c) One more early form must be mentioned: the cultic prophets employed as 
officials at the national sanctuary. They are to be distinguished clearly from the 
writing prophets (contra S. Mowinckel, The Psalms in Israel’s Worship I-II, 1961), 
since the latter strongly criticized the cult (e.g. the temple, Hos. 8:14, RV mg.; 
Mic. 3:9-12; Jer. 7:1-15; sacrifice, Amos 3:14; Hos. 5:6; Isa. 1: 10-17; priests, 
Hos. 4:4; Mic. 3:11; Jer. 2:8). Moreover, they acted and spoke in a way foreign 
to the cult (G. von Rad, op. cit., II, 54 f.). The cultic prophet had his place along 
with the priest in the cult. His task would have been to give oracles in answer to 
communal laments, and especially to the king. For this reason he had great in- 
fluence in the royal court (1 Ki. 1:8), where he spoke as a man of God (1 Ki. 
22:24 ff.) with remarkable severity (2 Sam. 12:1 ff.). The cultic prophets were 
feared, because their powerful — word could bring success or disaster (1 Sam. 16:4; 
1 Ki. 17:18). Their words of salvation would be formulated after the manner of 
proverbs. In Isa. 33:1-24 there is preserved a prophetic liturgy (H. Gunkel, 
““Jesaia 33, eine prophetische Liturgie’, ZAW 42, 1924, 177-208), which gives us 
insight into the language of these prophets. Among the cultic prophets we may 
count Shimei (1 Ki. 1:8), Zedekiah (1 Ki. 22:24), and perhaps also Nathan 
(2 Sam. 12:1 ff.; 1 Ki. 1:11 ff.) who worked in close association with the court and 
yet enjoyed an astonishing degree of independence. No books have come down to 
us from these prophets, unless one includes Nahum and Habakkuk who at least 
have some affinity with them. There are, however, unmistakable traits of the cultic 
prophet in Zechariah and still more in Haggai. 



3. Prophecy in the characteristic sense associated with the prophetic literature of 
the OT began in Israel with the monarchy. However, no sharp dividing-line can be 
drawn. Ecstasy, soothsaying and miracle-working fade into the background, and 
the — word comes increasingly to the fore. Ties with the cult, with institutions and 
with the monarchy also become progressively looser. From Amos to Malachi 
the word was the predominant means of proclamation. The only actions of 
the prophets were symbolic actions. These were not strictly illustrations, but the 
acting out the content of the word (Hos. 1:4, 6, 9; Isa. 7:3; 8:3 f.; 20:2; Jer. 16:2, 
5, 8). The classical prophets were active during three periods: the time of the disso- 
lution of the Northern Kingdom (around 721 B.c.), of the Southern Kingdom 
(around 597-587 B.c.), and the time of the exile (around 539 B.c., the end of the 
Babylonian supremacy). In relation to history their message had a horizontal 
(the nation and the nations) and a vertical (past, present, future) dimension. The 
future dimension was in the nature of a warning, where the future is linked with 
the present situation of the hearer. It was not a prediction, where, as in sooth- 
saying, the attention is taken away from the present to a point in the future and it 
is foretold what will happen. The themes include the following: 

(a) Prophecy of judgment. Especially before the exile, it was the task of the 
prophets to warn the people, their representatives or a group of the people about 
the approaching — judgment. This could take various forms, such as droughts, 
earthquakes and wars. Since, however, the prophets were also responsible for 
exhorting and counselling the people, and preached with a view to repentance, the 
threat was accompanied by an explanation of the reason for the judgment. Thus 
the judgment comes about because of the — sin of the nation, of the king, or of a 
group within the nation. For the prophets, sin is human behaviour which is out of 
accord with the actions of God. In detail, this means in Isaiah, that the people is 
not putting its trust in Yahweh alone; in Amos and Micah, that the people is 
disregarding the law and commandments of Yahweh; in Hosea, Jeremiah and 
Ezekiel, the emphasis is rather on the unfaithfulness of the people in idolatry. 

(b) Prophecy of salvation. Prophecies of salvation did not originate in curiosity 
about what will happen after God’s judgment. They were based upon the loving 
will of God (in contrast to prophecies of judgment, which resulted from the wrong 
behaviour of men). This is further indicated by the various forms which the word 
of salvation, or promise, could take: the pledge is clearly the answer to a previous 
complaint, and so is not far removed from the favourable oracle (Isa. 43:1 ff.); the 
announcement promises God’s future help (Isa. 41:17 ff.; Jer. 28:2 ff.); the descrip- 
tion depicts the future reality of the salvation which God will bring about (Isa. 
11:1 ff.; Zech. 8:4f.). Prophecies of — salvation predominate during and after 
the exile. Salvation becomes a reality in the renewal of the relationship between 
Israel and God, in the eschatological king (the messiah), in the new ordering of the 
cult, the renewal of the state and political liberation of the nation. Majestic repre- 
sentation of salvation is often followed by an explanation of the ground on which 
it is based: not the faithfulness or holiness of the people, in its zeal for God and the 
covenant, but the faithfulness, holiness, zeal and unconditional love of God alone. 

To sum up, the OT prophet is a proclaimer of the word, called by God to warn, 
exhort, comfort, teach and counsel, bound to God alone and thus enjoying a 
freedom that is unique. 



4. Although later tradition added the book of Daniel to the prophets, it is in 
fact an example of Jewish apocalyptic. The latter is distinguished from prophecy 
by “‘pseudonymity, eschatological impatience and exact calculations about the 
last things, the range and fantasy of its visions, concern for world history and a 
cosmic horizon, numerical symbolism and esoteric language, doctrines of angels 
and hope of the afterlife’’ (W. Baumgartner, “Ein Vierteljahrhundert Danielfor- 
schung’, ThR 11, 1939, 136f.). Apocalyptic is therefore not a straightforward 
continuation of prophecy, though both share the element of future expectation. 
Its heyday comes after the prophets, between the 2nd century B.c. and the 2nd 
century A.D. The transition may be clearly seen in Zechariah: in the seven visions 
of the night (1:7-6:8) the prophet becomes a seer to whom the eschatological 
future of the nations and of Israel is revealed (cf. Isa. 24-27; Ezek. 38 f.; 
Joel). | 

5. The rabbis naturally saw in apocalyptic the legitimate successor of prophecy. 
“Up to this point [i.e. up to Alexander the Great] the prophets preached through 
the Holy Spirit. From then on, bow thine ear and hear the words of the wise [1.e. 
the apocalyptic writers]? (Seder ‘Olam Rabbah 30). Prophecy itself is extinguished. 
In rabbinic writings the “‘voice from heaven” (— Word, art. phoné) begins to 
gain importance alongside apocalyptic. God still spoke but only through the echo 
of his voice (bat gé/) (SB II 125 ff.; cf. J. Jeremias, New Testament Theology, I 
1971, 80 ff.). Josephus (Ant. 13, 311 ff.), on the other hand, reports that the Essenes 
had a great number of prophets who were held in high repute. 

The cessation of prophecy is indicated by Ps. 74:9 and 1 Macc. 9:27 (cf. 4:46; 
9:27; 14:41). On the other hand, some scholars see evidence for the expectation 
of an eschatological prophet connected with the person of — Moses on the basis of 
Deut. 18: 15-18 (cf. Acts 3:22 f.; 7:37; and Jn. 6:14; 7:40) and connected with the 
person of — Elijah on the basis of Mal. 3:1 (cf. Matt. 11:10; Mk. 1:2; Lk. 1:17, 
76; 7:27) and 4:1-6 (MT 3:19-24; cf. Matt. 17:11; Mk. 9:12; Lk. 1:17). (For 
further discussion see F. Hahn, “‘The Eschatological Prophet’, in The Titles of 
Jesus in Christology: Their History in Early Christianity, 1969, 352-406; G. Molin, 
‘*Elijahu. Der Prophet und sein Weiterleben in den Hoffnungen des Judentums und 
der Christenheit”’, Judaica 8, 1952, 65-94; M.-J. Stiassny, ‘“‘Le Prophéte Elie dans 
le Judaisme”’, in Elie le Prophéte, Etudes Carmélitaines 35, 199-255; SB II, 626 f.; 
IV 764-98; R. Schnackenburg, “Die Erwartungen des ‘Propheten’ nach dem Neuen 
Testament und den Qumran-Texten’’, StudEv 1, TU V, 18, 1959, 622-39; H. M. 
Teeple, The Mosaic Eschatological Prophet, 1959; and the literature listed in the 
articles on Moses and Elijah.) 

6. The Qumran community treasured the prophetic writings of the OT (including 
the Psalms) to an extraordinary degree. They applied the prophecies to the events 
of their own day, which they saw as the “‘end of days’ (i.e. the end-time). The 
Teacher of Righteousness reveals the secrets of the prophetic words (1QpHab 7: l- 
5) and so takes on the réle of an actual prophet. The eschatological event which the 
Qumran community awaited was the coming of “‘the Prophet and of the Messiahs 
of Aaron and Israel’? (1QS 9:11). This suggests a triumvirate, not a ruler with 
a threefold office (cf. Test.Lev. 18:9 ff.; cf. K. G. Kuhn, “‘Die beiden Messias 
Aarons und Israels’, NTS 1, 1954-55, 168 ff.; F. F. Bruce, The Teacher of 
Righteousness in the Qumran Texts, 1956, 13). 



NT In the NT prophétés is found 144 times, most frequently in Matt. (37 times) and 

Luke (Gospel 29 times; Acts 30 times). In Mk. it is found only 6 times, and 14 
times each in Jn. and Paul. It occurs 8 times in Rev., twice each in Heb. and 2 Pet. 
and once each in Jas. and | Pet. The noun means a prophet, one who proclaims and 
expounds divine revelation. In most cases it refers to OT prophets, but it is also 
applied to John the Baptist, Jesus and others who proclaim the Kingdom of God 
or Christ, and to the believer who possesses the gift of prophecy. Only in one place 
(Tit. 1:12) does a pagan receive the title of prophet. This is the poet Epimenides 
(6th century B.c.), from whose Theogony a proverbial saying is quoted (‘‘Cretans 
are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons’’). Epimenides was regarded as a prophet 
by Plutarch (Solon 12), Plato (Laws 1, 642d) and others in the ancient world. The 
fact that he is regarded as a prophet here lends authority to the judgment. 

As well as referring to a person, prophétés can also be used of the OT prophetic 
writings (e.g. Matt. 5:17; Jn. 6:45; Rom. 3:21). 

In the NT the title prophetess is not given to a woman who prophesies, with the 
exception of Lk. 2:36, where Anna, the daughter of Phanuel, is given this title 
because she proclaimed Christ. Jezebel, the type of the woman led astray into 
idolatry, gives herself the title (Rev. 2:20). 

The abstract noun prophéteia is found only 19 times in the NT, and of these 9 
times in Paul (including 5 times in 1 Cor. and twice in | Tim.) and 7 times in Rev. 
Otherwise it occurs once in Matt. and twice in 2 Pet. It refers to the prophetic 
word of an OT (e.g. Matt. 13:14) or Christian prophet (e.g. 1 Cor. 14:6). Only 
Paul uses it also as a term for the gift of prophecy (charisma; —- Grace; e.g. Rom. 
12:6). At Rev. 19:10 it probably means prophetic word, while at Rev. 11:6 it 
probably signifies prophetic activity. 

It is similar with the occurrences of the vb., which is found 28 times in the NT, 
and of these 11 times in Paul, all in 1 Cor. The remaining instances are 4 in Maitt., 
2 each in Mk. and Lk., | in Jn., 4 in Acts, 1 each in 1 Pet. and Jude, and 2 in Rev. 
The basic meaning is to proclaim divine revelation (e.g. Matt. 7:22; cf. above, 2). 
This can be understood in an ethical, paracletic sense (e.g. 1 Cor. 14:3, 31; to 
comfort, exhort, teach); in a revelatory sense (e.g. Matt. 26:68) or as pointing to 
the future (e.g. Matt. 15:7; to foretell). Since the title of prophet is not given to 
women in the church, a circumlocution is used (Acts 21:9; Philip the evangelist’s 
‘four unmarried daughters who prophesied’’). 

The late word pseudoprophétés is found 11 times in the NT, including 3 times. 
each in Matt. and Rev., but not at all in Paul. It occurs once each in Mk., Lk., 
Acts, 2 Pet. and 1 Jn. Normally it is used of a person who makes a false claim to 
being a prophet (e.g. Matt. 7:15). Since such people proceed to preach what is 
not true, the name comes to be applied to anyone who does this (1 Jn. 4:1) and so 
shows himself to be a false prophet. The adj. prophétikos occurs only in Rom. 16:26 
and 2 Pet. 1:19. The vb. manteuomai is found only at Acts 16:16 of the soothsaying 
of the girl at Philippi who prior to her exorcism by Paul brought her owners great 

The NT term prophet is used in the following five senses. 

1. The Old Testament Prophet. As in the OT (“Thus saith the Lord’) he is 
described as “the mouth of God” (Jer. 15:19; Acts 3:18, 21). God is behind the 
passive construction in Matt. 2:17, 23 etc. Some take the reference in | Pet. 1:11 to 



‘the Spirit of Christ’, the one at work in the prophets, to indicate the pre-existent 
Lord, who in | Pet. is one with God (cf. A. T. Hanson, Jesus Christ in the Old 
Testament, 1965, 133-36). In Heb. 1:1 (where en is used, on the analogy of Heb. 
b°, of the instrument), the prophet is likewise seen as an instrument of God who 
makes an open proclamation. But the prefix pro- comes to be understood more and 
more in a temporal sense, so that, in contrast to the OT, the prophet is seen as one 
who foretells. He predicts everything which is later fulfilled in Jesus Christ (Matt. 
1:22 f.; 2:5 f., 15, 17 f., 23, etc.). These texts are not proof-texts in the sense that 
the prophets make a prediction, and Jesus Christ fulfils it, therefore the prophecies 
are confirmed by — Jesus Christ or the scriptures proved through him. (For a 
discussion of the notion of fulfilment in Matt. which sees it not as direct, predictive 
prophecy but as fulfilled typology — Fullness, art. plérod, NT 1 (b)-(c).) For Matt. 
the authority of the OT is so incontestable that it does not need to be proved. 
Rather, the texts are reflective quotations, intended to show that Jesus Christ does 
something, or that with his coming something happens. Matt. does his reflecting 
by the use of a suitable OT quotation. Since the prophets (— Scripture) constitute 
an absolute authority for Matt., this means that Jesus Christ is proved by the 
quotation to be messiah. The direction of his argument is thus the opposite to 
that of a proof-text which establishes the truth of scripture. 

A striking feature is the frequency of NT references to the violent deaths of the 
prophets (Matt. 23:31; the saying at Matt. 23:37 par. Lk. 13:34; in Acts 7:52 
a line is drawn through the murder of the prophets to the death of Jesus). In early 
Christianity martyrdom was integrally related to the concept of the prophet (Matt. 
23:35). Jesus presented himself as one who stood in the line of rejected prophets 
whose own rejection marked the climax of evil and brought open judgment on 
Jerusalem. He was also the culminating figure of those who were martyred for their 
righteousness (Matt. 23:35; Lk. 11:51). Abel (Gen. 4) was the first. Zechariah, the 
son of Jehoiada, is mentioned towards the end of the last book of the OT canon 
(2 Chr. 24:20 ff.). The latter may be identified here with Zechariah the son of 
Berechiah (Zech. 1:1). A Zechariah, son of Baris or Baruch was martyred in the 
Temple in A.D. 70 (Josephus, War 4, 5, 4), but he could hardly be the figure here. 
The Jewish tradition and LXX texts about the various Zechariahs show con- 

2. John the Baptist. John is consistently given the title of prophet. This is justified 
by the fact that he takes up and makes even more radical the prophetic preaching 
of judgment and repentance (Amos 9:7 ff.; Mic. 3:12; Jer. 7:3 ff.; 26:1 ff.). His 
preaching was aimed at moral improvement, and at shaking the religious self- 
confidence of the Jews. His — baptism, which was not proselyte baptism or that 
practised at Qumran, must be seen as an eschatological sacrament of repentance, 
which is a testimony of conversion and forms a seal of salvation. It is not surprising 
that John was therefore regarded as the expected eschatological prophet who would 
bring in the age of salvation (cf. above, or 3; Matt. 11:8 ff.). The NT however 
suppresses this (false) view, and portrays him as the eschatological forerunner 
(Matt. 3:1 ff.; 11:11 f.; 14:2 ff; 16:14; 17:13; Mk. 6:25; 8:28; Lk. 7:20, 33; 
9:19), or “‘witness”’ of Jesus (Jn. 1:6 ff.), who points in his preaching to Jesus Christ 
and in his baptism to Christian baptism (O. Cullmann, The Christology of the New 
Testament, 19637, 23-30; cf. J. Jeremias, New Testament Theology, I, 1971, 43-49; 



C. H. H. Scobie, John the Baptist, 1963; W. Wink, John the Baptist in the Gospel 
Tradition, Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 7, 1968). 

3. Jesus Christ. Only occasionally in the NT is Jesus Christ called a prophet, and 
generally only by the people (Mk. 6:15 par. Lk. 9:8; Matt. 16:14 par. Mk. 8:28, 
Lk. 9:19; Lk. 7:16). They may have in mind here contemporary prophets, but — 
Elijah is also mentioned by all three evangelists, and Matt. also refers to Jeremiah, 
suggesting that Jesus is thought of as in the succession of OT prophets. However, 
Jesus never described himself directly as a prophet. No great weight may be laid on 
Lk. 13:33 as a self-designation, since it is probably a quotation of a proverbial 
saying. In the passages ascribed to Q, the word prophet never occurs as a christo- 
logical title; it is most frequently found in Lk. (cf. F. Hahn, The Titles of Jesus in 
Christology, 1969, 379 ff.; O. Cullmann, op. cit., 30-38). According to the NT, Jesus 
Christ is greater than the prophets (Matt. 12:41), since he not only announced 
but also brought salvation (1 Pet. 1:10f.; Lk. 10:24). Christ is presented as a 
prophet in the sense of Deut. 18:15: ‘“The Lord your God will raise up a prophet 
like me from among you, from your brethren — him shall you heed”’ (cf. Acts 
3:22 f.; 7:37; Matt. 2: 1-23; 4:1-11; 5:1 ff.; Jn. 6:14; 7:40). 

J. Jeremias sees Jesus as a charismatic rather than as a professional theologian 
(Matt. 7:29 par. Mk. 1:22, Lk. 4:32). ““The unanimous verdict on him was that 
he was a prophet. There was a constant echo to this effect among the people (Mark 
6:15 par.; 8:28 par.; Matt. 21:11, 46; Luke 7:16; John 4:19; 6:14; 7:40, 52; 9:17) 
and even — though coupled with some scepticism — in Pharisaic circles (Luke 7:39; 
Mark 8:11 par.). According to Luke 24:19, Jesus’ disciples, too, saw him as a 
prophet. Finally, it was as a false prophet that Jesus was arrested and accused. 
This is clear from the account of the mockery under Jewish confinement’ (New 
Testament Theology, I, 1971, 77; cf. also J. D. G. Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, 1975, 
82 ff.). In support of the latter point Jeremias cites Matt. 26:68 par. Mk. 14:65, Lk. 
22:64, and notes that a false prophet had to die (Deut. 18:20; cf. 13:6; 17:13). 
‘* “Prophet’ was not a full description of the task for which he had been sent. . ., but 
he included himself among the ranks of the prophets (Luke 13:33; Matt. 23:31 f., 
34-36 par., 37-39 par.; cf. Mark 6:4 par.; Luke 4:24; John 4:44). He does this 
not only in those passages in which he uses the term ‘prophet’, but also in those 
in which he claims to possess the spirit. For the synagogue regarded the possession 
of the holy spirit, i.e. the spirit of God, as the mark of prophecy. To possess the 
spirit of God was to be a prophet” (op. cit., 78; cf. the Beelzebul controversy, 
Matt. 12:25-37 par. Mk. 3:23-30, Lk. 11:17-23; and Mk. 13:11; Lk. 6:23, 26 par. 
Matt. 5:12; Jn. 7:37 ff.). Whereas the Spirit had long been quenched, Jesus initi- 
ated the time of salvation. It was heralded by John the Baptist who was more than 
a prophet (Matt. 11:9 par. Lk. 7:26). It is indicated by his own presence as one 
who is greater than — Jonah (Matt. 12:41 par. Lk. 11:32). ‘“‘The time of barrenness 
_and judgment is coming to an end. The quenched spirit is returning after a long 
absence. God is breaking his silence and is speaking again, as he once did in the 
days of the prophets’’ (op. cit., 82). But the ‘‘more’’ implied in these latter ref- 
erences “‘has an eschatological ring. . . . With the new activity of the spirit the time 
of salvation has begun”’ (ibid). 

4. Those Specially Commissioned. In the nativity narrative of Lk., and only here, 
we find people who have been specially commissioned and equipped by God to 



proclaim prophetic messages which have been given to them by the Holy Spirit 
(cf. R. Laurentin, Structure et Théologie de Luc [-IT, 1964). Of these only Anna has 
the title of prophet (Lk. 2:36). Zacharias’ song, the Benedictus, is described as a 
prophecy inspired by the Holy Spirit (Lk. 1:67). Elizabeth (Lk. 1:41 f.) and Simeon 
(Lk. 2:25) speak by the Holy Spirit, which is intended to imply a prophetic gift. 

5. Christian Prophets. The early Christian church had Christians who possessed 
the gift of prophecy. They were regarded as a sign that the Spirit was present in the 
church (— Spirit; — Grace). It must be assumed that at a very early stage this 
charismatic, impulsive prophecy became institutionalized, and prophets were then 
seen as the holders of a spiritual office. This had its own standing in the community 
between, or on a par with, — apostles and teachers (1 Cor. 12:28 f.; Eph. 4:11); 
next to apostles (Lk. 11:49; Eph. 2:20, though possibly OT prophets are referred 
to here; Eph. 3:5; Did. 11:3); next to teachers (Acts 13:1; Did. 15:1 f.); next to 
saints and apostles (Rev. 18:20). 

(a) In the worship at Corinth they had in the service (1 Cor. 14:23 f.) the task 
of exhorting (1 Cor. 14:3, 24f., 31), comforting (1 Cor. 14:3), and edifying the 
church (1 Cor. 14:3), and of communicating knowledge and mysteries (1 Cor. 
13:2). Paul instructed them to do this in words which could be understood (1 Cor. 
12:1; 14:15 f., 23 f.), and not in a state of — ecstasy. There was evidently a danger, 
however, that the prophetic spirit might break out in uncontrolled, ecstatic power 
and invade the church’s worship in such a way that not just one (1 Cor. 14:30) 
but several (v. 31) would be prophesying at the same time. Paul handled this 
problem by declaring that the spirits of prophets should be subject to prophets 
(v. 32), by which he meant submission to order and the peace of God (v. 33a). The 
prophet must also be able to remain silent. It remains debatable whether we can 
detect in the epistles the utterances of early Christian prophets, in the form of 
““statements of holy law” (cf. E. Kasemann, ‘“‘Sentences of Holy Law in the New 
Testament”, New Testament Questions of Today, 1969, 66-81). K&ésemann cites 
Rom 11:25 f.; 1 Cor. 3:17; 14:38; 15:51 f.; 16:22; Gal. 5:21 and 1 Thess. 3:4 
as eschatological logia. 

(b) In Eph. 2:20 the prophets form part of the “foundation” of the church. 
This image suggests that the period in which the foundations of the church were 
laid is over, i.e. the prophetic office is a thing of the past. The apostles are here the 
NT counterpart of the OT prophets. Together they constitute the foundation, 
“Christ Jesus himself being the chief cornerstone’ (— Rock). 

(c) Warnings against false prophets in the Synoptic Gospels (Matt. 7:15, 22 f.; 
24:24 par. Mk. 13:22) permit the conclusion that there must have been a great 
number of Christian prophets in the area of Syria and Palestine. 

Using form-critical analysis, E. Kasemann attempts to isolate forms of prophetic 
proclamation (statements of holy law, curses, blessings, etc.) in the synoptic tradi- 
tion, and to demonstrate that these are the logia of early Christian prophets (““The 
Beginnings of Christian Theology’’, op. cit., 82-107). Such “‘spurious’’ dominical 
sayings, he suggests, formed part of the sayings-source, and were understood in the 
early church to be words of the risen Lord given by the mouth of Christian prophets. 

C. H. Peisker 

Kasemann’s view which is shared by many goes back to R. Bultmann, The 


History of the Synoptic Tradition, 1968*, 127 f., and beyond that to H. Gunkel, 
Reden und Aufsdtze, 1913, 173, and H. von Soden, Das Interesse des apostolischen 
Zeitalters, 1892, 153. (For this and the following points see D. Hill, ““On the Evi- 
dence for the Creative R6le of Christian Prophets’’, NTS 20, 1973-74, 262-74.) In 
support of his view of this creative rdéle for the Christian prophets Bultmann 
appealed generally to Rev. and Od.Sol. 42:6: “‘For I have risen and stand by them 
and speak through their mouth.’ 

But the view has not gone unquestioned. M. Dibelius, himself a leading form- 
critic, drew attention to Paul’s distinction between commands which came from 
the Lord and his own advice (1 Cor. 7:10, 12, 25; cf. From Tradition to Gospel, 
1971, 241 f.)..F. Neugebauer has pointed out that no similar transformation of 
logia occurs in Jewish and NT writings and that the theory pays no heed to the 
difference in literary genre between “Gospel”? and ‘“‘Apocalypse’’ (““Geistspriiche 
und Jesuslogien”, ZNW 53, 1962, 218-28). Moreover, if, as Bultmann allows, the 
words of the prophets only gradually came to be regarded as those of the historical 
Jesus, this in itself presupposes that the community originally made a distinction 
between the two. And if the words of the risen Lord uttered by the prophets had 
the same value as those of the historical Jesus, there is no reason for projecting 
them back into a fictitious pre-Easter setting. Bultmann and his followers have not 
paid sufficient attention to the rdéle of — tradition in early Christian — proclama- 
tion. ‘““The place given by Bultmann and others to the Christian prophets is pre- 
cisely that occupied by the Gnostic authors of apocryphal Gospels: in these works 
it is not the Jesus of history who teaches by action and by word, but the resurrected 
Lord who conveys truths and revelations to this or that privileged disciple” (D. 
Hill, op. cit., 264). 

Hill draws attention to the weakness of the exegetical basis of Bultmann’s view. 
The Odes of Solomon is probably not a Ist century Jewish-Christian work, but 
a gnostic hymn-book from the 2nd century A.D. (Henn.Schn., I, 809 f.; cf. Hill, 
op. cit., 265). Moreover, the verse on which Bultmann leans does not refer to 
Christian prophets but to believers in general. In the letters to the seven churches 
in Rev. 1-3, the Spirit of Christ addresses the churches as the Spirit of the exalted 
Lord (cf. also Rev. 16:15) and not in a form of words projected back into the life- 
situation of the historical Jesus. Similarly, Paul was careful to distinguish his own 
opinions from the teachings of Jesus, even though he claimed to have the Spirit 
as the Corinthians did (1 Cor. 7:40). Moreover, there is evidence to suggest that 
the early church distinguished between the Spirit addressing a man (Acts 10:1; 
11:12; 13:2; 21:11) and the utterances of the glorified Lord (Acts 9:4 ff., 10 f.; 
18:9; 23:11). Nowhere in the Pauline letters is there an implied identity between an 
encounter with the Spirit bringing a revelation and the words of the historical 
Jesus (Hill, op. cit., 267). 

Whilst passages in Rev. may echo words attributed to the earthly Jesus (cf. Rev. 
16:15 with Lk. 12:39; and Rev. 3:20 with Lk. 22:29 f. and Lk. 12:36), they 
clearly do not purport to be utterances of the earthly Jesus. In any case, the author 
of Rev. cannot be appealed to as a model of the activity and consciousness of 
Christian prophets generally in the NT period. The author is the authoritative 
mediator of the revelation (Rev. 1:1). Those who keep the words of his book are 
blessed (Rev. 1:3; cf. 22:7). Readers of his book, including the prophets, are 



subordinate. The prophets of the community do not make any independent con- 
tribution to the prophecy; their function is to teach (cf. the teaching of the false 
prophetess in Rev. 2:24) (on all this see further D. Hill, “‘Prophecy and Prophets 
in the Revelation of St John’, NTS 18, 1971-72, 401-18; A Satake, Die Gemein- 
deordnung in der Johannes-Apokalypse, 1966). The evidence of Acts 11:28 and 
21:11 does not support the idea of the prophets producing utterances in the name 
of the historical Jesus; rather, Agabus speaks here by the Spirit. Similarly, there is 
no hint in | Cor. 7:40 and 14:3 of the charismatic prophet using the name of Christ 
in the first person. 

Examples of Kaésemann’s concept of ‘Sentences of Holy Law” include 1 Cor. 3:17 
and Matt. 10:32. But from a study of the form of such sentences, there is nothing 
to require the existence of a community of prophets to promulgate eschatological 
laws of this kind (cf. K. Berger, “‘Zu den sogenannten Satzen heiligen Rechts’, 
NTS 17, 1970-71, 10-40). Whilst such formulations can be transposed in to the 
realm of eschatology, their form “belongs to the genre of sapiential exhortation in 
which the sanction corresponds to the action according to a law of immanent 
justice’ (D. Hill, op. cit., 271). Finally, Hill observes that Kasemann’s attempt to 
link the activity of the Christian prophets with gnosticism fails because of sheer 
lack of knowledge about the Christian prophecy and the origin and nature of 
gnosticism (op. cit., 272 f.). 

(d) Acts gives considerable information about prophets. It includes the prophecy 
of Agabus which involves prediction of future events: widespread famine (Acts 
11:28) and Paul’s arrest (Acts 21:10 f.). But among contemporary German scholars 
the accounts of Acts are commonly conceived to be of little value as a historical 
source. The reason for this sceptical attitude is bound up with the acceptance of 
Conzelmann’s ascription to Luke of a view of time which divides history into three 
eras: the period of Israel, the middle time, and the period of the church. The third 
era begins with — Pentecost (Acts 2:1 ff.), and therefore takes up most of the 
book of Acts. It is characterized as, among other things, the time when the Spirit 
is poured out on all Christians (whereas in the second era Jesus was the only bearer 
of the Spirit). One sign of the superabundant outpouring of the Spirit is the great 
number of early Christian prophets who are named (Acts 11:27 f.; 13:1; 15:32; 
21:9 ff.), and the principle that all Christians are given prophetic inspiration (Acts 
2:17 f.; 19:6). The numerous references to prophecy are held to be theologically 
motivated. However, theological interpretation need not necessarily be something 
alien superimposed on a situation that was historically different. (For discussion 
of Luke’s view of history — Present, art. The Parousia and Eschatology in the NT, 
especially NT 2 (b).) 

In the Lucan writings OT prophets are referred to in Lk. 4:24; 7:16; 39; 9:8, 19; 
13:33; 24:19; Acts 3:22 f. Acts 7:37 sees Jesus as a prophet in terms of the 
prophecy of a successor to — Moses in Deut. 18:15, 18. John the Baptist is des- 
cribed as a prophet in Lk. 1:76 (cf. Mal. 4:5); 7:26; and 20:6. Christian prophets 
are envisaged in Lk. 11:49: ““Therefore also the Wisdom of God said, ‘I will send 
them prophets and apostles, some of whom they will kill and persecute.’ ’’ Here 
Wisdom may be identified with the Spirit of God as in later Judaism (cf. Wis. 9:17), 
implying a contrast with the wisdom of Solomon (Lk. 11:31) (for further discussion 
see E. E. Ellis, The Gospel of Luke, New Century Bible, 1966, 170 ff.). The passage 



may well be a comment attributed to the Spirit which is intended to supplement the 
previous words of the historical Jesus. Acts mentions a group of prophets from the 
Jerusalem church visiting Antioch, including Agabus (Acts 11:27 f.; cf. 21:10), a 
group resident in Antioch, including Barnabas and Paul (Acts 13:1), and the two 
prophets who accompanied the Jerusalem decree to Antioch, Judas Barsabbas and 
Silas (Acts 15:22, 32). The vb. prophéteuo is always used in Acts of Christians 
(Acts 2:17 f.; cf. Joel 2:28 ff.; Acts 19:6; and 21:9). Although Peter is not called a 
prophet, he has the marks of one, which include the knowledge of men’s hearts 
(Acts 5:3; 8:21 ff.; cf. Lk. 7:39). He also had experience of visions and dreams 
fulfilling the prophecy of Joel (cf. also Acts 10:10). Similarly others had these 
prophetic experiences (Acts 9:10; 16:9; 22:17 ff.; 27:23; cf. Num. 12:6). Acts 
21:9 refers to the four daughters of Philip who prophesied (cf. also the references 
to them in Eusebius, HE 3, 31, 4; 3, 37, 1). E. E. Ellis sums up this evidence by 
saying that “Christian prophecy in Acts is represented as an eschatological power 
of the Holy Spirit from God (Acts 2:17) or from the risen Jesus (Acts 1:8; 2:17; 
33; cf. Psa. 68:19(18); Eph. 4:8). Although prophecy is a possibility for any 
Christian, it is primarily identified with certain leaders who exercise it as a ministry” 
(“‘The Role of the Christian Prophet in Acts’’, in W. W. Gasque and R. P. Martin, 
éds., Apostolic History and the Gospel: Biblical and Historical Essays Presented to 
F. F. Bruce, 1970, 56). 

The purpose of Ellis’s study is to try to ascertain more precisely Luke’s under- 
standing of what constitutes and what distinguishes prophecy. Certain functions 
are reminiscent of the OT prophet: prediction of future events (Acts 11:28; 20:23, 
25; 27:22), the declaration of divine judgments (Acts 13:11; 28:25—28), and the 
employment of symbolic actions (Acts 21:11). Ellis notes a particular link between 
prophecy and exhortation. ‘“‘And Judas and Silas, who were themselves prophets 
exhorted [parekalesan] the brethren with many words and strengthened [epesté- 
rixan] them’”’ (Acts 15:32; — Exhort, art. parakaled). The vb. parakaleé is used 
of the ministry of John the Baptist (Lk. 3:18; cf. 7:26), as well as of that of the 
prophets (Acts 11:23; 16:40; 20:2), though not that of Jesus. It is applied to Peter 
(Acts 2:40; cf. also 1 Thess. 2:12), and is found in the NT only in Acts 14:22 of 
the prophets Paul and Barnabas and in the Thessalonian letters with the cognate 
stérizo (1 Thess. 3:2; 2 Thess. 2:17). The corresponding noun parakleésis which 
occurs in Lk.-Acts, Paul and Heb. is associated by Luke with the activity of the 
Spirit (cf. Acts 9:31; 13:15). Ellis observes that “‘the written paraklésis of the 
Jerusalem Decree is set in parallel with the verbal ‘exhortation’ of the prophets 
Judas and Silas, and the term ‘son of parak/lésis’, applied to Barnabas in Acts 4: 36, 
possibly represents ‘son of prophecy’. The understanding of parakleésis as the specific 
ministry of a prophet is supported in the Pauline literature by I Corinthians 14:2 f.” 
(op. cit., 57; cf. also Rom. 15:4 f.; 2 Cor. 5:20). The interpretation of scripture, 
usually in the synagogues, is a central feature of the mission of the prophets, 
though it is not confined to them (Acts 2: 14-36; 3: 12-26; 4:8-12; 6:9 ff.; 7:2-53; 
8: 30-35; 9:20 ff.; 13:5, 16-41; 16:22 f.; 17:2, 10 f., 17, 22-31; 18:4, 24-28; 19:8; 
28:23). The interpretation of scripture was understood as a prophetic function 
(Dan. 9:2, 14; Targum to Jdg. 5:9; cf. SB IV 116; R. Meyer, TDNT VI 817). 
Similarly, the allusion to the rabbis sitting “‘in Moses’ seat” (Matt. 23:2) indicates 
that the rabbis saw themselves as the successors to the prophets (Ellis, op. cit., 58). 



As at Qumran, there was no sharp division between the prophet and the teacher 
(op. cit., 59). Jesus himself was seen as teacher and eschatological prophet (cf. 
Lk. 7:39 f. with Mk. 1:21 par. Lk. 4:31; and Mk. 6:1-6 par. Matt. 13:53—58; 
Lk. 4:16 ff.). In the light of the implied connexions in these contexts between 
prophecy and the exposition of scripture, Ellis suggests “‘that the prophets Judas 
and Silas were not chosen incidentally to accompany the Decree. Probably they 
were chosen because they had already exercised an influential role in establishing 
(or proclaiming) the biblical rationale upon which the provisions of the Decree 
were justified” (op. cit., 62). 

Ellis observes that the prophets in Acts exercised a widespread ministry in a 
varied fashion — singly or in groups, travelling or in settled congregations. But 
their functions were not restricted to those who were specifically designated as 
prophets. This is, in fact, paralleled by other ministries and —~ gifts in the NT 
where sometimes the gifts are shared by anyone and sometimes they relate to 
specific offices (cf. Acts 2:33; 6:3, 8 ff. with 1 Cor. 12:28, 31; 14:1; 2 Tim 1:11; 
op. cit., 63 f.). On the basis of his comparison of the réle of the prophet with that 
of the apostle and elder, Ellis concludes that “the role of the prophet may overlap 
that of the elder as it does that of the apostle and teacher, especially in certain 
teaching functions. But unlike the prophet the apostle (in Jerusalem at least) and 
the elder or ‘shepherd’ are incorporated into the organizational structure” (op. 
cit., 66; > Apostle; — Bishop). At various points in Acts, Luke presents the Chris- 
tian mission as a continuation of the mission of Jesus who is now the exalted Lord 
(Acts 1:1; 9:5; 10:13; 16:7; 22:18; 23:11) and as a contest between conflicting 
spiritual powers (Acts 8:9-24; 13:6 ff.; 16:16; 19: 13-20). Ellis concludes: ‘‘The 
role of the Christian prophet is related to both of these Lucan themes. The prophet 
is the Lord’s instrument, one among several means by which Jesus leads his church. 
As one who makes known (gndstos) the meaning of Scripture, exhorts, and streng- 
thens the congregation, and instructs the community by revelations of the future, 
the Christian prophet manifests in the power of the Spirit the character of his Lord, 
who is the Prophet of the end-time (3:22)” (op. cit., 67). 

(e) In Rev. prophets appear to have superseded apostles. In the three passages 
where the latter are mentioned Rev. 2:2 refers to false apostles, and Rev. 18:20 and 
21:14 refer to the apostolic Twelve who are the counterpart of the OT prophets. 
On the other hand, prophets are mentioned in Rev. 10:7; 11:10, 18; 16:6; 18:20, 
24; 22:6, 9. The author regards himself as a prophet (Rev. 22:9). He has received 
from the exalted Lord a revelation of the meaning of the events of history (Rev. 
1:1). This is embodied in a series of seven sets of visions which constitute the 
substance of his book (— Number, art. hepta). He is called to console and exhort 
(cf. above (d)). Although the words parakaleo and paraklésis do not occur, the 
letters to the Seven Churches (chs. 2 and 3) and indeed the whole work constitutes 
a series of messages of consolation and exhortation. The work carries the authority 
of the exalted Christ, speaking through the Spirit (Rev. 22:18 f.). 

In “Prophecy and Prophets in the Revelation of St John’ (NTS 18, 1971-72, 
401-18) D. Hill argues that the author “considered himself to be a prophet, and 
that his writing, while employing much of the traditional apparatus of Apocalyptic 
but lacking many of the most characteristic features of that genre, may justifiably, 
and probably correctly, be regarded as prophetic in intention and character, 



especially in its concern with and interpretation of history” (op. cit., 406). The 
term prophet in the book denotes primarily Christian prophets who, while they 
may be separable from the body of believers, cannot be said to have special pre- 
cedence or position on the basis of existing evidence (op. cit., 410). The phrase hé 
martyria Iésou (Christou), “‘the witness of Jesus (Christ)’’, occurs six times (Rev. 1:2, 
9; 12:17; 19:10 twice; 20:4) and the clause “‘to have the witness’”’ or “‘the witness 
of Jesus” three times (Rev. 6:9; 12:17; 19:10). On the basis of his study of these 
passages, Hill contends that the author holds a unique position. He stands in the 
tradition of OT and Jewish prophecy, rather than of Christian prophecy, and 
mediates to his brethren (the Christian prophets) the revelation of Jesus Christ. 
The Christian prophets are distinguished from other Christians in that they actually 
fulfil the ministry of witness and prophecy that is expected of the entire church 
which, at least in Rev. 19:10, is potentially a community of prophets (op. cit., 
414; cf. 1 Cor. 14 where prophecy is a gift to be sought by all, though exercised by 
a few). The concept of prophetic activity in Rev. is comparable with that seen by 
Ellis in Lk.-Acts in relation to interpreting the meaning of scripture (see above 
(d)). As A. Feuillet has observed, Rev. is a “re-reading of the OT in the light 
of the Christian event” (L’ Apocalypse. Etat de la Question, 1963, 65; cf. op. cit., 

(f) For a time prophecy continued to have a place in the church. Prophets are 
known in the Didache, but the author shows some nervousness about false prophets 
and those who outstay their welcome (Did. 10:7; 11:7—12; 13:1-7; cf. also Justin, 
Dial. 82, 1). They featured in Montanism in the 2nd and 3rd centuries (cf. Eusebius, 
HE 5, 16, 3-17; 5, 19,2; Epiphanius, Haer. 48, 49; Hippol., Haer. 8, 19, 1-3; Tert.. 
De anima 9). Besides Montanus himself, Priscilla and Maximilla claimed to be 
prophetesses. But Montanist abuse led to the gradual discrediting and disappear- 
ance of prophecy. | C. Brown 
—> Covenant, — Ecstasy, — Elijah, — Jonah, — Law, — Moses, — Priest, > 
Revelation, — Sacrifice, — Wisdom, — Word 

(a). B. W. Anderson and W. Harrelson, eds., [srael’s Prophetic Heritage: Essays in Honor of 
James Muilenberg, 1962; G. W. Anderson et al., Studies on Prophecy: A Collection of Twelve 
Papers, Supplements to VT 26, 1974; J. G. Baldwin, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, TC, 1972; A. 
Bentzen, ““The Ritual Background of Amos i. 2-ii. 16” OTS 8, 1950, 85-99; E. Best, ‘“‘Prophets and 
Preachers”, SJT 12, 1959, 129-50; J. Bright, Jeremiah, Anchor Bible, 1965; and Covenant and 
Promise: The Future in the Preaching of the Pre-exilic Prophets, 1977; F. F. Bruce, The Teacher of 
Righteousness in the Qumran Texts, 1956; M. Buber, The Prophetic Faith, 1949; R. Bultmann, 
‘*Prophecy as Fulfilment”, in C. Westermann, ed., Essays on Old Testament Interpretation, 1963, 
50-75; M. Burrows, ‘‘Prophecy and the Prophets at Qumran’’, in B. W. Anderson and W. Harrel- 
son, eds., op. cit., 223-32; H. von Campenhausen, Ecclesiastical Authority and Spiritual Power in 
the Church of the First Three Centuries, 1969; K. W. Carley, Ezekiel among the Prophets: A Study 
of Ezekiel’s Place in the Prophetic Tradition, SBT Second Series 31, 1975; B. S. Childs, Isaiah and 
the Assyrian Crisis, SBT Second Series 3, 1967; R. E. Clements, Prophecy and Covenant, SBT 43, 
1965; and Prophecy and Tradition, Growing Points in Theology, 1975; J. L. Crenshaw, ‘‘The In- 
fluence of the Wise upon Amos. The ‘Doxologies of Amos’ and Job 5:9-16; 9:5-10”, ZAW 79, 
1967, and 45 ff.; Prophetic Conflict: Its Effect upon Israelite Religion, BZAW 124, 1974; P. E. 
Davies, “‘Jesus and the Role of the Prophet’, JBL 64, 1945, 214-54; A. B. Davidson, Old Testa- 
ment Prophecy, ed. J. A. Paterson, 1903; C. H. Dodd, ‘‘Jesus as Teacher and Prophet’, in G. K. A. 
Bell and A. Deissmann, eds., Mysterium Christi: Christological Studies by British and German 
Theologians, 1930, 53-66; ““The Prophecy of Caiaphas (John xi 47—53)’’, in Neotestamentica et 
Patristica (O. Cullmann Festschrift), Supplements to NovT 6, 1962, 134-43; J. D. G. Dunn, Jesus 



and the Spirit: A Study of the Religious and Charismatic Experience of Jesus and the First Christians 
as Reflected in the New Testament, 1975; and Unity and Diversity in the New Testament: An 
Inquiry into the Character of Earliest Christianity, 1977; W. Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testa- 
ment, 1, 1961, 289-391; and Ezekiel, 1970; O. Eissfeldt, ‘‘The Prophetic Literature”, in H. H. 
Rowley, ed., The Old Testament and Modern Study, 1951, 115-61; and The Old Testament: An 
Introduction 1965, 241-442; E. E. Ellis, The Gospel of Luke, New Century Bible, 1966; and ‘‘The 
Role of the Christian Prophet in Acts’, in W. W. Gasque and R. P. Martin, eds., Apostolic 
History and the Gospel: Biblical and Historical Essays Presented to F. F. Bruce, 1970, 55-67; 
H. L. Ellison, Men Spake from God: Studies in the Hebrew Prophets, 1952; 1. Engnell, ‘‘Prophets 
and Prophetism in the Old Testament’’, in Critical Essays on the Old Testament, 1970, 123-79; 
S. Erlandsson, The Burden of Babylon: A Study of Isaiah 13:2-14:23, Coniectanea Biblica OT 
Series 4, 1970; J. E. Fontenrose, Python: A Study of Delphic Myth and its Origins, 1959; G. 
Fohrer, ‘“‘Remarks on Modern Interpretation of the Prophets’, JBL 80, 1961, 309-19; and 
History of Israelite Religion, 1973; S. B. Frost, Patriarchs and Prophets, 1963; N. K. Gottwald, 
All the Kingdoms of the Earth: Israelite Prophecy and International Relations in the Ancient Near 
East, 1964; A. Guillaume, Prophecy and Divination, 1938; W. K. C. Guthrie, ‘‘Delphic Oracle’, 
OCD 322 f.; H. A. Guy, New Testament Prophecy, 1947; F. Hahn, The Titles of Jesus in Christology 
Their History in Early Christianity, 1969; R. K. Harrison, /ntroduction to the Old Testament, 1970, 
663-962; and Jeremiah and Lamentations, TC, 1973; J. H. Hayes, ‘“‘The Use of Oracles against 
Foreign Nations in Ancient Israel’, JBL 87, 1968, 81-92; E. W. Heaton, The Old Testament 
Prophets, 1976 (revised); D. Hill, ‘‘Prophecy and Prophets in the Revelation of St John’, NTS 18, 
1971-72, 401-18; and ‘‘On the Evidence of the Creative R6le of Christian Prophets”, NTS 20, 
1973-74, 262-74; D. R. Hillers, Treaty Curses and the Old Testament Prophets, 1964; J. Jeremias, 
New Testament Theology, 1, The Proclamation of Jesus, 1971, 76-84; A. R. Johnson, The Cultic 
Prophet in Ancient Israel, 19627; O. Kaiser, Isaiah 1-12, 1972; and Isaiah 13-39, 1974; E. K4se- 
mann, ‘‘Sentences of Holy Law in the New Testament’, and ‘‘The Beginnings of Christian Theo- 
logy’, in New Testament Questions of Today, 1969, 66-81, 82-107; R. Knierim, ‘“‘The Vocation of 
Isaiah’, VT 18, 1968, 64-68; H. Kramer, R. Rendtorff, R. Meyer, G. Friedrich, prophétés etc., 
TDNT VI 781-861; H.-J. Kraus, Worship in Ancient Israel: A Cultic History of the Old Testament, 
1966; C. Kuhl, The Prophets of Israel, 1960; J. Lindblom, Prophecy in Ancient Israel, 1962; A. 
Lods, The Prophets and the Rise of Judaism, 1937; W. McKane, Prophets and Wise Men, SBT 44, 
1965; A. A. MacRae, ‘‘Prophets and Prophecy’, ZPEB IV 875-903; J. L. Mays, Amos, 1969; 
F. L. Moriarty, ‘‘Prophets and Covenant”’, Gregorianum 66, 1965, 817-33; S. Mowinckel, Prophecy 
and Tradition: The Prophetic Books in the Light of the Study of the Growth and History of the 
Tradition, 1949; and The Psalms in Israel’s Worship, 1-1, 1962; J. Muilenburg, ‘“The ‘Office’ of the 
Prophet in Ancient Israel’’, in J. P. Hyatt, ed., The Bible in Modern Scholarship: Papers Read at 
the*l00th Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, 1965, 74-97; B. D. Napier, ‘“‘Prophet, 
Prophetism’’, /DB III 896-919; M. Newman, “‘The Prophetic Call of Samuel’, in B. W. Anderson 
and W. Harrelson, eds., op. cit., 86-97; M. Noth, “‘History and the Word of God in the Old 
Testament’’, and ‘“‘Office and Vocation in the Old Testament”, in The Laws in the Pentateuch and 
Other Studies, 1966, 179-93, 229-49; H. M. Orlinsky et al., Interpreting the Prophetic Tradition, 
1969; H. W. Parke and D. E. W. Worrell, The Delphic Oracle, I-II, 19567; J. B. Payne, Encyclo- 
pedia of Biblical Prophecy: The Complete Guide to Scriptural Predictions and their Fulfilment, 1973; 
N. W. Porteous, ‘“‘The Prophets and the Problem of Continuity’’, in B. W. Anderson and W. Harrel- 
son, eds., op. cit., 11-25; G. von Rad, ‘“‘The Deuteronomistic Theology of History in the Book of 
Kings’’, in Studies in Deuteronomy, SBT 9, 1953, 74-91; Old Testament Theology, Il, 1965; and 
The Message of the Prophets, 1968 (containing material from Old Testament Theology); J. Reiling, 
Hermas and Christian Prophecy: A Study of the Eleventh Mandate, Supplements to NovT 37, 1973; 
H. Ringgren, /sraelite Religion, 1966; T. H. Robinson, Prophecy and the Prophets in Ancient Israel, 
19532; H. H. Rowley, ‘‘The Law and the Prophets’’, in The Unity of the Bible, 1953, 30-61; Men 
of God: Studies in Old Testament History and Prophecy, 1963; From Moses to Qumran, 1963; 
‘“‘The Prophets and the Cult”, in Worship in Ancient Israel: Its Forms and Meaning, 1967, 144-75; 
“The Nature of Old Testament Prophecy in the Light of Recent Study”, in The Servant of the 
Lord and Other Essays on the Old Testament, 19657, 95-134; H. H. Rowley, ed., Studies in Old 
Testament Prophecy Presented to Professor Theodore H. Robinson, 1950; M. H. Shepherd, Jr., 
‘*Prophet in the NT’, /DB III 919 f.; J. Schildenberger, “Prophet”, EBT II 716-22; W. Schmithals, 
Gnosticism in Corinth, 1971; E. Schweizer, Church Order in the New Testament, SBT 32, 1961; J. B. 
Taylor, Ezekiel, TC 1965; H. M. Teeple, The Mosaic Eschatological Prophet, 1959; W. C. van 

90 , 


Unnik, ““A Formula Describing Prophecy”, NTS 9, 1962-63, 86-94; R. de Vaux, Ancient Israel: 
Its Life and Institutions, 1961, 384 ff.; and ‘Jerusalem and the Prophets”, in /nterpreting the 
Prophetic Tradition, 1969, 275-300; B. Vawter, The Conscience of Israel: Pre-Exilic Prophets and 
Prophecy, 1973; T. C. Vriezen, ‘“‘Prophecy and Eschatology”, Supplements to VT 1, 1953; and 
‘‘Essentials of the Theology of Isaiah’’, in B. W. Anderson and W. Harrelson, op. cit., 128-46; 
J. W. Wevers, Ezekiel, New Century Bible, 1969; C. Westermann, Basic Forms of Prophetic 
Speech, 1967; Isaiah 40-66, 1969; C. Westermann, ed., Essays on Old Testament Interpretation, 
1963; C. F. Whitley, The Prophetic Achievement, 1963; R. N. Whybray, /saiah 40-66, New Century 
Bible, 1976; G. Widengren, Literary and Psychological Aspects of the Hebrew Prophets, \948; 
H. W. Wolff, Hosea, Hermeneia, 1974; E. J. Young, My Servants the Prophets, 1955; and The 
Book of Isaiah, \-I\1, New International Commentary, 1965-72; F. W. Young, “‘Jesus the Prophet: 
A Re-examination”’, JBL 68, 1949, 285-99; W. Zimmerli, The Law and the Prophets: A Study of 
the Meaning of the Old Testament, 1965; and Ezekiel, 1, Hermeneia, 1977. 
(b). R. Bach, Die Aufforderung zur Flucht und zum Kampf im alttestamentlichen Prophetenspruch, 
WMANT 9, 1962; E. Balla, Die Botschaft der Propheten, 1958; T. Chary, Les Propheétes et le 
Culte a Partir de |’ Exil, 1956; W. Dietrich, Prophetie und Geschichte. Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche 
Untersuchung zum deuteronomischen Geschichtswerk, FRLANT 108, 1972; E. Fascher, Prophéteés. 
Eine sprach- und religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung, 1927; G. Fohrer, ‘*‘Neuere Literatur zur 
alttestamentlichen Prophetie’’, JAR 19, 1951, 277 ff.; ibid. 20, 1952, 192 ff.; ibid., 28, 1962, 1 ff. 
235 ff., 301 ff.; Die symbolische Handlungen der Propheten, AThANT, 25, 1953; ‘‘Prophetie und 
Magie”’, ZAW 78, 1966, 25 ff.; and Studien zur alttestamentlichen Prophetie, BZAW 99, 1967; F. 
Gils, Jésus Prophéte d’apres les Evangiles Synoptiques, Orientalia et Biblica Lovanensia 2, 1957; 
H. Greeven, “‘Propheten, Lehrer, Vorsteher bei Paulus’, ZNW 44, 1952-53, 1-43; and “Die 
Geistesgaben bei Paulus’, WuD Neue Folge 1959, 111 ff.; J. Haeckel, ‘Religion’, in L. Adam and 
H. Trimborn, Lehrbuch der Vélkerkunde, 1958, 40 ff.; J. Harvey, Le Plaidoyer prophétique contre 
Israél aprés la Rupture de I’ Alliance, 1967; M. L. Henry, Prophet und Tradition. Versuch einer 
Problemstellung, BZAW 116, 1969; S. Herrmann, ‘‘Das Prophetische’’, in Reich Gottes und Wirk- 
lichkeit, Festschrift A. D. Miller, 1961 (reprinted in Probleme alttestamentlicher Hermeneutik, ThB 
11, 19683, 341 ff.); Die prophetischen Heilswartungen im Alten Testament, BWANT 5, 5, 1965; 
Prophetie und Wirklichkeit in der Epoche des babylonischen Exils, AzTh 1, 32, 1967; and ‘Die 
konstruktive Restauration. Das Deuteronomium als Mitte biblischer Theologie’’, in Probleme 
biblischer Theologie, Festschrift G. von Rad, 1971, 155-70; F. Hesse, *‘Wurzelt die prophetische 
Geschichtsrede im israelitischen Kult?’, ZAW 65, 1953, 45-53; and Das Verstockungsproblem 
im Alten Testament, BZ AW 74, 1958; F. Haeussermann, Wortempfang und Symbol in der alttesta- 
mentlichen Prophetie, BZAW 58, 1932; F. Horst, ““Die Visionsschilderungen der alttestamentlichen 
Propheten”’, Ev7h 20, 1960, 193 ff.; E. Jenni, Die politischen Voraussagungen der Propheten, 
AThANT 29, 1956; and Die alttestamentliche Prophetie, 1962; A. Jepsen, ““Gottesmann und Prophet. 
Anmerkungen zum Kapitel 1. K6nige 13’, in Probleme biblischer Theologie, Festschrift G. von 
Rad, 1971, 171-82; G. Jeremias, Der Lehrer der Gerechtigkeit, StUNT 2, 1963; J. Jeremias, 
Kultprophetie und Gerichtsverkiindigung in der spadten Konigszeit Israels, WMANT 35, 1970; 
H.-J. Kraus, Prophetie und Politik, ThEH Neue Folge 36, 1952; K. G. Kuhn, ‘‘Die beiden Messias 
Aarons und Israels’, NTS 1, 1954-55, 168 ff.; G. Mensching et al., ‘‘Propheten”’, RGG? V 608 ff.; 
O. Michel, Prophet und Martyrer, BFChTh 37, 2, 1932; L. Monloubou, Prophéte qui es-tu? Le 
Prophétisme avant les Prophétes, 1968; F. Neugebauer, ‘“‘Geistspriiche und Jesuslogien’’, ZNW 
53, 1962, 218-28; F. Notscher, ‘“‘Prophetie im Umkreis des alten Israel’, BZ 10, 1966, 161 ff.; 
C. H. Peisker, ‘‘Propheten’’, in Kleine Predigttypologie, 1], 1965, 159 ff.; E. Osswald, Falsche 
Propheten im Alten Testament, 1962; P. von der Osten-Sacken, Die Apokalyptik in ihrem Verhaltnis 
zur Prophetie und Weisheit, ThEH Neue Folge 157, 1969; O. Ploger, ‘“‘Priester und Prophet’, ZAW 
63, 1951, 157 ff.; G. Quell, Wahre und falsche Propheten, 1952; and ‘“‘Der Kultprophet”’, TLZ 81, 
1956, 401 ff.; R. Rendtorff, ‘‘Priesterliche Kulttheologie und prophetische Kultpolemik”, TLZ 
81, 1956, 339 ff.; “‘Propheten”, EKL III 343 ff.; ““Erwagungen zur Frihgeschichte des Propheten- 
tums in Israel”, Z7K 59, 1962, 145 ff.; and ‘“‘Tradition und Prophetie’’, ThV 8, 1962, 216-26; 
H. Graf von Reventlow, Das Amt des Propheten bei Amos, FRLANT 80, 1962; ‘‘Prophetenamt 
und Mittleramt”’, ZTK 58, 1961, 269-84; Liturgie und prophetisches Ich bei Jeremia, 1963; and 
Wachter tiber Israel. Ezechiel und seine Tradition, BZAW 82, 1962; H. Riesenfeld, ‘“‘Jesus als 
Prophet”’, in Spiritus et Veritas, Festschrift K. Kundzin, 1953, 135 ff.; W. Richter, Die sogenannten 
vorprophetischen Berufungsberichte, FRLANT 101; 1970; A. Satake, Die Gemetndeordnung in der 
Johannes- Apokalypse, 1966; SB Il 626f.; IV 764-98; E. A. Schachter, ‘“‘Bundesformular und 


prophetischer Unheilspruch’’, Biblica 48, 1967, 128-31; J. Scharbert, Die Propheten Israels, \-II, 
1967; W. Schmauch, ‘‘Das prophetische Amt in der Gemeinde’, Junge Kirche 19, 1958, 126 ff.; 
R. Schnackenburg, ‘‘Die Enderwartungen des ‘Propheten’ in den Hoffnungen des Judentums 
und der Christenheit”’, Judaica 8, 1952, 65-94; and ‘‘Die Erwartung des Propheten nach dem 
Neuen Testament und den Qumrantexten”’, TU 73, 1959, 622 ff.; H.-J. Schoeps, ‘“‘Die jiidischen 
Prophetenmorde”’, in Aus friihchristlicher Zeit. Religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen, 1950, 
126 ff.; K. Schwarzwaller, “‘Kirche und Prophetie’”, Er7h 26, 1966, 580 ff.; K. Seybold, Das 
davidische Kénigtum im Zeugnis der Propheten, FRLANT 107, 1972; O. H. Steck, Israel und 
das gewaltsame Geschick der Propheten. Untersuchungen zur Uberlieferung des deuteronomischen 
Geschichtsbildes im Alten Testament, Spatjudentum und Urchristentum, WMANT 23, 1967; and 
Uberlieferung und Zeitgeschichte in den Elia-Erzahlungen, WMANT 26, 1968; J. Steinmann, Le 
Prophétisme biblique des Origines a Osée, 1959; and Le Livre de la Consolation d’Israél et les 
Prophétes du Retour de l’Exil, 1961; C. Tresmontant, La Doctrine morale des Prophétes d’Israél 
1958; J. Vollmer, Geschichtliche Rackblicke und Motive in der Prophetie des Amos, Hosea und Jesaia, 
BZAW 119, 1971; E. von Waldow, Der traditionsgeschichtliche Hintergrund der prophetistchen 
Gerichtsreden, BZAW 85, 1963; H. W. Wolff, ““Hauptprobleme alttestamentlicher Prophetie’’, 
EvTh 15, 1955, 446 ff. (reprinted in Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament, ThB 22, 1964, 
206 ff.); ‘‘Das Geschichtsverstaéndnis der alttestamentlichen Prophetie”’, Ev7h 20, 1960, 218 ff. 
(reprinted in Probleme alttestamentlicher Hermeneutik, ThB 11, 1968%, 319 ff.) and ‘‘Hoseas 
geistige Heimat’’, Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament, 232-50; E. Wirthwein, ‘‘Der Ur- 
sprung der prophetischen Gerichtsrede”, Wort und Existenz, 1970, 111-26; ‘‘Amos-Studien”’, 
ibid., 68-110; ‘‘Jesaja, 7, 1-9. Ein Beitrag zu dem Thema: Prophetie und Politik’’, ibid., 127-43; 
W. Zimmerli, Studien zur alttestamentlichen Theologie und Prophetie, Gesammelte Aufsdtze, I, 

Punishment, Vengeance 

a ae diky (diké), justice, punishment, vengeance; &KdIKEw 
(ekdikeo), execute justice, punish, avenge; é&Kd1KoC 

(ekdikos), avenger; ékdikyoic (ekdikésis), vengeance, recompense, punishment. 

cL 1. The noun diké can mean, on the one hand, a mythological personification, 

the goddess of just punishment (Hesiod, Works 256 ff.), and on the other hand, 
in legal language, justice (Homer, J/. 16, 388), a judicial case (Hesiod, Works 249), a 
legal decision or judgment (Homer, //. 18, 508; Od. 11, 570). It can also mean 
vengeance or punishment (Hesiod, Works 712; Josephus, Ant. 6, 237 f. War 7, 450; 
Philo, Op.Mund. 80). Along with the later word dikaiosyné (— Righteousness), 
diké is one of the basic concepts in the Gk. legal world, particularly in the adminis- 
tration of justice. 

2. The vb. ekdiked, be outlawed, avenge, punish, which is first attested in 
Apollodorus of Athens in 150 B.c., has undergone a striking change in meaning. 
Etymologically it is derived from ekdikos (Aesch. onwards): one who places him- 
self through his own fault outside the law is outlawed and acts unlawfully. The adj. 
means something unjust: pasché ekdika, “‘I suffer injustice.” 

But the much more common word with the same content in the Gk. language is 
ekdikazo (Aristoph. onwards) which means to decide a legal case, punish, avenge. 
This word gave its meaning to the new Hel. form ekdikeo, so that it moved from 
the meaning be outlawed to that of avenge, and ekdikos from the meaning outlaw 
to that of avenger. Correspondingly ekdikésis should be translated vengeance, 
recompense. The juridical use of ekdikeo in the papyri is also important. Here it 



means to decide a case, work as an advocate, defend or help someone to obtain his 

oT 1. In the LXX the noun diké, justice, vengeance, punishment, is surprisingly 

seldom used to translate Heb. words in comparison with the other words in this 
group, like dikaiosyné, — righteousness; 21 out of 28 instances of diké are in the 
apocryphal literature. Only 9 times does it represent rib, law-suit (over 60 occur- 
rences in the MT) and 4 times ndgam, vengeance (which, with n°qgamdh, occurs 
over 40 times in the MT). It can be used of Yahweh’s intervention to exact venge- 
ance and punishment from his people: Lev. 26:25 speaks of the “‘sword . . . that 
shall execute vengeance for the [breach of] covenant” (cf. M. Noth, Leviticus, 1965, 
194 ff.). Similarly, in Amos 7:4 Yahweh summons fire, to punish with it. But it 
can also be used of his intervention against his enemies (Deut. 32:41). At a later 
period, particularly in the Pss., there was an emphasis on his intervention to 
ensure justice for the person offering prayer (Pss. 9:4f.; 35:23; 43:1; 74:22; 
—> Righteousness) and for the ’eby6nim, the poor (Ps. 140: 12; — Poor). 

In the apocryphal literature diké means justice (Wis. 1:8), vengeance (cf. 
Wis. 18:11) and punishment (cf. 2 Macc. 8:11). 

2. The LXX’s translation of OT concepts like nagam, avenge, pdqad, visit, 
punish, rib, conduct a law-suit, and daraS, seek, by ekdikeo is a problem in so far as 
quite different concepts of justice are here brought into contact with one another. 
Concepts from the OT’s message of justice which communicates to individual men 
the will of God and from its judicial procedure, which is carried out solely with 
God’s authority, are translated by words from a legal terminology that was pre- 
viously neutral and secular. The OT took the thought embodied in Deut. 32:35 
very seriously, and left vengeance to God (cf. Gen. 4:15; 1 Sam. 24:12[13]; 
2 Ki.9:7; and Pss., e.g. 37:28; 99:8; 58:10; 79:10) or practised it as God’s 
command (Num. 31:2). The day of vengeance is spoken of in Hos. 9:7. Vengeance 
remained something — holy just as — blood ts holy. 

The various constructions used are numerous: the thing and the person that are 
avenged, as well as the victim of the avenging, are generally in the acc. after ekdiked 
and in the gen. after ekdikésis. The phrase ekdikein ekdikésin comes from the Heb. 
nagam n*qamah, take vengeance (e.g. Ezek. 25:12; cf. Lk. 18:7 f.). 

U. Falkenroth 

3. In the OT punishment and — judgment go together. Sodom and Gomorrah 
provided a classical instance of Yahweh’s punishment of a notoriously wicked 
pagan city providing a theme which was taken up in the NT (cf. Gen. 19:24 f. with 
Lk. 17:29; Gen. 19:26 with Lk. 17:32; Gen. 19:28 with Rev. 9:2). For other 
references to Sodom see Gen. 10:19; 13:10, 12 f.; 14:8, 10 ff.; 18:16-32; Deut. 
29:23; 32:32; Isa. 1:9°f.; 3:9; 13:19; Jer. 23:14; 49:18; 50:40; Lam. 4:6; Ezek. 
16:46-56; Amos 4:11; Zeph. 2:9 (cf. Matt. 10:15; 11:23 f.; Mk. 6:11; Lk. 10:12; 
Rom. 9:29; 2 Pet. 2:6; Jude 7; Rev. 11:8). The prophet Amos announced the 
punishment of the surrounding nations for their crimes against humanity (Amos | 
and 2), but this culminates in the announcement of the punishment of Israel for his 
transgressions in the form of idolatry (Amos 3:14) and the crimes committed 
against fellow Israelites (Amos 4:1 ff.). The foreign invasions were construed by 
the prophets as punishment for Israel’s sin, culminating in the destruction of the 



Northern Kingdom after the fall of Samaria in 722 B.c. (2 Ki. 15-17) and the exile 
of large sections of the population of Judah in the time of Jeremiah (2 Ki. 23-25), 
following the fall of Jerusalem (597 B.c.) and its destruction (587 B.c.). 

On an individual level the Mosaic legislation specified a range of punishments 
- for crimes both against God and against man. Some of the laws are comparable 
with those formulated in the Code of Hammurabi who belonged to the old Baby- 
lonian Amorite dynasty and reigned between 1728 and 1686 B.c. (for text see 
ANET, 163-80). However, there was a fundamental difference of outlook. As 
G. L. Archer observes, “Biblical jurisprudence was based upon the assumption 
that man is under obligation to carry out the revealed will of God in leading a 
holy life, respecting the rights of God and man, not simply upon a utilitarian basis 
of a pragmatic nature, but rather as a creature made in the likeness of God”’ 
(‘Crimes and Punishments’, ZPEB I 1031). 

Archer notes the following crimes against God. Idolatry was punishable by 
death, normally stoning (Deut. 13: 10-16; cf. Exod. 20:3-6; 22:20). Idols, cultic 
objects and altars were to be destroyed (Deut. 7:5, 25). Infant sacrifice (cf. 2 Ki. 
21:6, 16) which was involved in the worship of Moloch and Canaanite idols, was 
also punishable by death (Exod. 22:18; Lev. 20:27; Deut. 18:10 f.; — Magic). 
Blasphemy was deemed to bring retribution from Yahweh (Exod. 20:7; 22:28; 
Lev. 19:12; 24:11-23; Deut. 5:11). The penalty for false prophecy was death 
(Deut. 18:20 ff.; cf. Jer. 26:8 f.). Violation of the — sabbath (Exod. 20:9 f.; cf. 
Gen. 2:3; Exod. 16:23) was punished by death (Exod. 31:13-17; Num. 15:32-36), 
though the punishment was evidently not widely carried out. The warning of Jer. 
17:27 suggests that the sabbath was not being kept, but pronounces national 
retribution. Whereas offences committed by inadvertence could be atoned for 
(Lev. 16; Num. 15:27), stubbornness was punishable by being cut off from the 
people, which could mean death (Num. 15:30 f.; Deut. 17:8-12). 

Civil crimes included murder which was punishable by death (Gen. 9:6; Exod. 
21:12; Num. 35:31). Heb. law permitted no monetary damages as a substitute, 
as did Hittite law. However, those who had killed inadvertently or accidentally 
might flee to cities of refuge (Num. 34:22-15). The law provided for execution by 
the nearest able-bodied male relative of the deceased, ‘‘the avenger of blood” 
(Num. 35:19). But under the monarchy the king seems to have assumed jurisdiction 
(2 Sam. 13:19; 14:7, 11; 1 Ki. 2:34). In the case of unsolved murder, ritual and 
sacrificial provision was made lest the land should remain polluted (Deut. 21: 1-9). 
Second degree murder with no clearly specified penalty was recognized (Exod. 

The penalty for criminal assault resulting in serious or permanent injury was 
stated in terms of the /ex talionis, i.e. the same injury must be inflicted on the of- 
fender. “If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for 
tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for 
stripe” (Exod. 21:23 ff.; cf. Lev. 24:19f.; Deut. 19:21; Matt. 5:38). This was 
much less severe than the Middle Assyrian laws (cf. ANET, 186), and, in fact, what 
the OT appears to be doing here is to establish a principle of equity so that punish- 
ments fit the crimes. It is perhaps significant that nothing is said as to how the law 
was to be implemented. Assault on one’s parents was deemed serious enough to be 
punishable by death (Exod. 21:15). Serious injuries to slaves entitled the slaves to 



manumission (Exod. 21:26 f.). In cases of robbery, provision was made for restitu- 
tion plus punitive damages (Exod. 22:1, 4; 22:3; Lev. 6:2-7; 19:13). 

In contrast with the Sumerian, Babylonian, Assyrian and Hittite law codes, 
the Mosaic law made no provision for religious prostitution, and prostitution in 
general was opposed (— Discipline). Sodomy and homosexuality were punishable 
by death (Lev. 18:22, 29; 20:13), as were carnal relations with animals (Lev. 
18:23; 20:15). G. L. Archer comments: “‘All crimes of unchastity were regarded as 
grievous offences against God, adversely affecting the whole community; failure 
to punish them would mean the moral decline of Israel to the degenerate level of 
the pagan Canaanites before them. This, in turn, would lead to their expulsion 
from the Land of Promise” (ZPEB I 1033; cf. Lev. 18:24-29). Remarriage of a 
divorced wife would cause the Jand to sin (Deut. 24:4; — Divorce). The adultery 
committed by married persons was punishable by stoning (Lev. 20:10; Deut. 
22:14; cf. Exod. 20:14). This extended even to those who were betrothed (Lev. 
22:23 f.). There was, however, no set penalty for fornication. An Israelite might 
even marry a reformed harlot, though priests were not allowed to do so (Lev. 
21:7), and fornication by a priest’s daughter was a capital crime (Lev. 21:9). 
Rape carried the death penalty, though the law drew a distinction between acts 
perpetrated out of doors, where the victim was unable to summon help, and cases 
where help could be summoned (Deut. 22: 23-27). In the case of the seduction of a 
consenting unbetrothed virgin, the man might take her to wife in payment of fifty 
shekels to her father (Deut. 22:28 f.; cf. Exod. 22:16 f.). Polygamy was coun- 
tenanced (— Marriage), but there were certain forbidden degrees of marriage, and 
incest constituted a capital crime (Lev. 18: 7-18; 20: 11-21). On the case of levirate 
marriage, where a surviving brother marries the childless wife of a deceased brother 
(Deut. 25:5-10; cf. the Book of Ruth) + Marriage. Intercourse during menstrua- 
tion (which was treated in the context of the laws dealing with incestual relations) 
was not subject to a civil penalty but brought ritual uncleanness (Lev. 18:19; 
20:18; cf. 15:24). 

The Fifth Commandment laid down the decree: ‘“‘Honour your father and your 
mother, that your days may be long in the land which the Lord your God gives 
you” (Exod. 20:12; cf. Lev. 19:3; Deut. 5:16; Matt. 15:4; Mk. 7:10; Eph. 6:2). 
Not only was assault on one’s parents a capital offence, but so was cursing (Exod. 
21:15, 17; Lev. 20:9; Deut. 21:18 ff.). Kidnapping (which in ancient times was 
practised for purpose of-selling the victim as a slave) carried the death penalty 
(Exod. 21:16; Deut. 24:7). False accusation and perjury carried the same penalty 
as that required for the crime (Deut. 19:19). 

Cases of torts (i.e. personal wrongs dealt with by personal actions rather than by 
public prosecution) were judged by the elders of a town sitting by the gate (cf. 
Ruth 4). Such cases included damage to crops and vineyards from straying cattle 
or fire (Exod. 22:5 f.), injury to livestock or to persons from livestock (Exod. 21: 
33 f.; Lev. 24:18, 21). On the case of the oppressed who came under Yahweh’s 
special protection (Exod. 22:] 1-24) — Poor. 

' Stoning is the most frequently mentioned form of capital punishment in the OT. 
Perhaps it was used in cases affecting the community at large because it involved 
the maximum participation of the community including the prosecuting witnesses 
(Deut. 17:7). For instances see Lev. 20:2—5, 27; 24:15 f.; Num. 15:32-36; Deut. 



13:1-5; 17:2-7; 22:22 f.; Jos. 7:27; Jn. 8:7; Acts 7:57. In the case of murder, 
death by the sword is prescribed by Num. 35:19, 21 (but cf. also Exod. 32:27 and 
Deut. 13:15 in the cases of apostasy and idolatry). Death by burning was prescribed 
for certain sexual offences which involved prohibited degrees of intercourse (Lev. 
20:14; 21:9). Execution by hanging on a tree involving the public exposure of the 
victim involved particular shame (Deut. 21:22 f.; cf. Jos. 10:27; for fuller discus- 
sion — Cross). 

Mutilation is mentioned in Deut. 25:12 and the case of the /ex talionis (Exod. 
21:23 ff.) noted above. Scourging to a maximum of forty stripes is stipulated in 
Deut. 25:1-3 (cf. Josephus, Ant. 4, 238; 2 Cor. 11:24; — Beat for other NT 
_ instances). It was apparently a penalty for one who unjustly accused his wife of 
unchastity before marriage (Deut. 22:18). Archer suggests that imprisonment 
was largely restricted to detention prior to trial (ZPEB I 1036; but cf. Jer. 37:15 f. 
where Jeremiah was detained without a formal hearing). Monetary fines are 
mentioned in Exod. 21:22, 30 f.; 22:1-4; Deut. 22:18 f., 29. Enslavement was 
the penalty prescribed for the thief who could not repay damages (Exod. 22:3). 
It was also allowed for non-payment of debts (2 Ki. 4:1; Neh. 5:5; Amos 2:6). 
Exod. 21:2 lays down a maximum of six years in the case of an Israelite. Voluntary 
slavery is discussed in Lev. 25:39 ff. (—> Slave). : C. Brown 

4. Late Judaism remained within the bounds laid down by the OT tradition. 
The Qumran texts often repeat -the prohibition of the independent taking of ven- 
geance. Vengeance belongs to God or to men to whom he has deputed it. 

NT 1. In the NT diké only occurs 3 times, of which 2 are found in the context of 

the expectation of the judgment (—> Judgment, art. krima). 2 Thess. 1:9 uses 
it of the punishment of eternal destruction meted out to those who oppress the 
community, and Jude 7 of the punishment by eternal fire (— Fire, art. pyr) of the 
inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, which is used as an example of the judgment 
of the godless. Acts 28:4 tells how the Maltese supposed that Paul, who had been 
attacked by the snake, is a murderer whom diké “‘does not allow to live.’”? Some 
scholars see here an allusion to the Gk. mythological concept of a punitive 
deity (cf. E. Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles, 1971, 713). 

2. ekdiked also occurs only seldom in the NT. The passages where it occurs 
go back to OT traditions, especially to Deut. 32:35, 43, and also to the descrip- 
tions of the day of judgment and the tradition of teaching about the state. Lk. 
gives one example of the purely Gk. sense to execute justice (18:3 ff.), but other- 
wise it means to punish or avenge. 

(a) As in the case of the OT, ekdikeo and its derivatives are chiefly used in the 
NT with the sense of avenge. No important new thinking lies behind this, since the 
occurrences mostly appear in the form of OT phrases (and also in quotations) 
and thus naturally give expression to the vengeance of God. The translation avenge 
or vengeance is particularly appropriate where ekdikeo is used of God’s activity. 
This divine vengeance is frequently mentioned in connexion with descriptions 
of the divine day of judgment. 2 Thess. 1:8 is typical in this respect, using motifs 
from Isa. 66:15. God’s vengeance on his enemies is a compensation for those who 
suffer persecution. 



Similarly both passages in Rev. (6:10; 19:2) are concerned with the Last Judg- 
ment. Both are connected with one another. The first records the anguished 
questioning and petition of the martyrs for vengeance, i.e. for the final judgment. 
This is not fulfilled immediately; there is still a delay, a little interval; hence ven- 
geance, purged of all human lust for it, is left to God and its execution is first 
proclaimed in 19:2 (using the words of 2 Ki. 9:7), once the number of their fellow- 
servants and brothers is complete (6:11). Here we can see a motive for waiting for 
God’s vengeance; in the words of E. Lohmeyer ‘“‘only when judgment has been 
fully executed does full blessedness come to the martyrs” (Die Offenbarung Johannis, 
HNT 16, 1970°, on Rev. 16:10 f.). 

(b) It is not the only motive. While Rev. makes the persecutors and the ‘unbe- 
lievers the recipients of vengeance, in Heb. 10:30 it is the community itself. Those 
who have experienced — grace and who live by it know that God’s vengeance is a 
serious matter and acknowledge his justice in his acts of vengeance. Paul recalls 
Lev. 19:18 and Deut. 32:35, when he says that vengeance is God’s (Rom. 12:19 f.; 
cf. Heb. 10:30; Matt. 5:38-42). It is always God’s prerogative to execute ven- 
geance; instead of vengeance the community is called upon to love its enemies. 
He who does so “‘heaps coals of fire upon the head” of his enemy, i.e. he bestows 
upon him the fruit of — grace, that is, — love and — peace (cf. Prov. 25:21 f.; 
Matt. 5:44; Lk. 6:27; + Head, or 2). But God will one day uphold his rights in 
gracious or vengeful judgment. 

(c) ekdikos, avenger, in Rom. 13:4 designates an office, since this particular 
pericope contains a remarkable collection of expressions derived from the language 
of secular government. The might of the state is entrusted by God with the office 
of avenger. It is in line with OT thinking that an institution, conceived of in a wholly 
unmythological way (i.e. the authorities of Rom. 13:1 are not demonic powers), 
should thus have authority conferred upon it. This applies both to the kings of 
Israel and to other kings to whom Yahweh has given power (cf. Exod. 22:28; 
1 Sam. 15:1; 24:6; 2 Sam. 1:14; 1 Ki. 19:16 ff.; 2 Chr. 36:22 f.; Ezra 1:1 ff.; Prov. 
8:15; Isa. 10:5 ff.; 44:28; 45:1). (On Rom. 13:1 ff. + Might, art. exousia, NT.) 
The very similar passage in | Pet. 2:13 ff. confirms that this is a tradition (cf. also 
Jn. 19:11; Tit. 3:1). If we can translate God’s activity of ekdiked as avenging, then 
we can also follow Luther in translating ekdikos as avenger in 1 Thess. 4:6 without 
ignoring the official ring of the word. 

(d) We must also mention the secular use of the word as, e.g., in 2 Cor. 7:11 
where ekdikésis, punishment, and apologia, vindication, defence, two terms from 
criminal law, occur together. Here it just means punishment: Paul’s sharp inter- 
vention against an “‘offender’’ produces his punishment. Similarly he makes known 
in 2 Cor. 10:6 his readiness to punish every disobedience. 

(e) Luke is the only one to use the word once in the everyday legal language of 
Hellenism, in the parable of the importunate widow (Lk. 18:3 ff.). Here it means to 
provide someone with justice. On the other hand, the other two passages in Lk.’s 
writings (Lk. 21:22; Acts 7:24) follows closely the language of the LXX. 

3. On the forms of punishment inflicted by the Jews and the Romans in the NT 
period — Beat, — Council, > Cross. On the penalties imposed in the early 
Christian communities in connexion with church discipline — Bind, — Destroy, 
art. olethros, — Open. U. Falkenroth 



| KéAaciC | KoAdlo (kolazo), punish; xkdAacic (kolasis), punishment. 

CL J. Schneider links the original meaning of ko/az6 with its etymology, i.e. to 

maim, cut off. ““Punishment is designed to cut off what is bad or disorderly”’ 
(TDNT III 814). Both the noun and the vb. were fixed terms in Gk. sacral juris- 
prudence. In inscriptions there are references to the deity punishing violations of the 
cultic laws. Plato put forward the view that he who punishes aright does good, 
and that punishment is a blessing since it frees one from a false frame of soul (Grg. 
476a ff.; cf. TDNT III 815). 

OT The two terms occur chiefly in non-canonical literature. The vb. kolazo is 

without Heb. equivalent and is found in | Esd. 8:24; Wis. 3:4; 11:5, 8, 16; 
12:14 f., 27; 14:10; 16:1, 9; 18:11, 22; Sir. 23:21; Dan. 6:13(12); 1 Macc. 7:7; 2 
Macc. 6:14; 3 Macc. 3:26; 7:3, 14; 4 Macc. 2:11; 8:6; 18:5. kolasis stands for 
miks6l, cause of guilt, offence, in Ezek. 14:3, 4, 7; 18:30; 44:12. It is used in 
connexion with the vb. ka/am in the niph., be put to shame, in Ezek. 43:11. It 
has no Heb. equivalent in Wis. 11:13; 16:2, 24; 19:4; Jer. 18:20; 2 Macc. 4:38; 
3 Macc. 1:3; 4 Macc. 8:9; 13:7. 

Philo distinguished between the beneficent power of God with which he made the 
world and which is called God, and the judicial power in virtue of which he rules 
what is created and which is called Lord (Rer. Div.Her. 166; cf. TDNT III 815 for 
further references). God’s mercy is older than punishment (Deus.Jmm. 76) and 
God prefers to forgive rather than to punish (Spec.Leg. 2, 196). Punishment is for 
those who will not listen to reason (Agric. 40). Both Josephus (e.g. Ant. 1, 60) 
and Philo speak of kolasis as divine retribution. For other instances in non- 
biblical literature see Arndt, 440. The idea of eternal punishment kolasis aidnios 
is found in Test.Reub. 5:5. 

NT Both words occur only twice each in the NT. The vb. is found in Acts 4:21 
of the Jewish leaders’ treatment of Peter and John: ‘‘And when they had further 
threatened them, they let them go, finding no way to punish them, because of the 
people; for all men praised God for what had happened.” It is used of divine 
chastisement in 2 Pet. 2:9: “‘then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from 
trial, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment.” 
The noun occurs in | Jn. 4:18: ““There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts 
out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and he who fears is not perfected in 
love.’’ Schneider takes this to mean that “the man who lives in fear (before God) 
is already punished by this fear. His fear is his punishment”? (TDNT III 817). He 
notes, however, that most commentators do not take it in this way. Rather, the 
meaning would seem to be that continued existence in fear is a sign of an inadequate 
relationship with God which is meant to exist on the plane of love. The love in 
question is both God’s love for us and ours for him and the brethren (cf. v. 19 
with 2:9 ff.; 3:11-18; 4:7-12). When men live on that level, they have “‘confidence 
for the day of judgment”’ (v. 17). 

Matt. 25:46 raises the question of eternal punishment. At the end of the parable 
of the sheep and the goats the Lord separates the blessed, who manifested their 
righteousness in practical love, from the cursed who failed to do so, not recognizing 
the incognito presence of Christ in the needy brethren. ‘“‘Then he will say to those 



at his left hand, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the 
devil and his angels. ...’ And they will go away into eternal punishment [eis 
kolasin aidnion], but the righteous into eternal life [eis zoén aidnion]’’ (Matt. 25:41, 
46). The passage has often been cited in support of the doctrine of endless torment. 
But it may be questioned whether it implies more than the finality of judgment. 
The term eternal has both qualitative and quantitative overtones (— Time, art. 
aion). Jesus did not teach, like Plato and others, that the — soul was intrinsically 
immortal and that it would necessarily go on after death. References to the eternal 
—> fire (Matt. 18:8; cf. Mk. 9:43-48; Jude 7) are necessarily figurative. 

In attempting to determine the meaning of such passages, attention needs to be 
paid to semantics and the philosophical analysis of the structure and function of 
language. The words “‘life’’ and “‘judgment”’ are what I. T. Ramsey called models 
which describe something in familiar terms which is, in fact, not capable of being 
described in a purely literal way. For although eternal can be entered into now, its 
future character lies hidden beyond this life. The word “‘eternal’’ is what Ramsey 
termed a qualifier which serves as a directive to understand the model in a special 
way (Religious Language: An Empirical Placing of Theological Phrases, 1957, 61 f.; 
cf. also Freedom and Immortality, 1960, 91-148). The qualifier is not simply a literal 
description of the noun but a reminder that it is being used in a non-literal sense 
(cf. such phrases as ‘‘heavenly Father’, ‘infinite love’). Similarly the phrase 
‘eternal sin” (Mk. 3:29) does not mean an endless sin but one which has dimen- 
sions and ramifications beyond the present life. 

Eternal — judgment is referred to in Heb. 6:2 and 2 Thess. 1:9. This, like the 
idea of eternal fire, does not necessarily imply that those concerned go on being 
judged or continue to be consumed. If the metaphor of fire is to be pressed at all, 
it would imply that the fire of righteousness continues to burn, but that what is 
consumed once is consumed for good (cf. also Paul’s observation about works 
being consumed by fire, 1 Cor. 3:15). Rev. 20:10 speaks of the beast and false 
prophet tormented for ever in the lake of fire into which are also cast Death, Hades 
and anyone whose name is not in “the book of life’ (Rev. 20:14 f.). The latter 
passage suggests that the lake of fire is not the same as — hell. For the author of 
Rev., all “dogs and sorcerers and fornicators and murderers and idolaters, and 
every one who loves and practises falsehood” are excluded from the new Jerusalem 
(Rev. 22:15). The parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Lk. 16:19-31) pictures 
the rich man’s conscious awareness of torment in the after-life (for discussion 
see J. D. M. Derrett, “Dives and Lazarus and the Preceding Sayings’’, in Law 
in the New Testament, 1970, 78-99). In interpreting this parable it has to be de- 
cided whether the parable is intended to teach the conscious ongoing torment 
of the unrighteous or whether the point is: if only the unrighteous could return to 
life, they would testify to the tragic mistake that they have made, which has led to 
their eternal rejection, but as it is, people have sufficient warning in the law and 
the prophets. C. Brown 
— Anger, — Beat, — Council, —> Cross, —» Death, — Destroy, —> Discipline, 
—> Divorce, — Hell, — Judgment, — Life, — Might, —~ Present, — Resurrection, 
—> Time. 

(a). A. Alt, ‘““The Origins of Israelite Law’’, in Essays on Old Testament History and Religion, 1966, 
79-132; G. L. Archer, ‘‘Crimes and Punishments” (ZPEB I 1030-36); B. F. C. Atkinson, Life 



and Immortality: An Examination of the Nature and Meaning of Life and Death as they are Revealed 
in the Scriptures, 1969; J. Baillie, And the Life Everlasting, 1934; L. Boettner, Immortality, 1956; 
H. Buis, The Doctrine of Eternal Punishment, 1956; and ‘Punishment, Everlasting’, ZPEB IV 
954-57; H. B. Clark, Biblical Law, 19447; O. Cullmann, The State in the New Testament, 1957; 
and Immortality of the Soul or Resurrection of the Dead ?, 1958; R. B. Girdlestone, Dies Irae: The 
Judgment of the Great Day, Viewed in the Light of Scripture and Conscience, 1869; H. E. Guillebaud 
The Righteous Judge: A Study of the Biblical Doctrine of Everlasting Punishment, 1964; M. Hengel, 
Crucifixion in the Ancient World and the Folly of the Message of the Cross, 1977; M. Horbery, 
An Enquiry into the Scripture Doctrine concerning the Duration of Future Punishment, 1744; J. 
Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus: An Investigation into Economic and Social Conditions 
during the New Testament Period, 1969; J. H. Leckie, The World to Come and Final Destiny, 
19222; C. S. Lewis, ‘““The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment’, The Churchman 78, 1959, 55-60; 
W. Lillie, ““Towards a Biblical Doctrine of Punishment’’, S/T 21, 1968, 449-61; G. E. Mendenhall, 
Law and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near East, 1955; A. Phillips, Ancient Israel’s Criminal 
Law: A New Approach to the Decalogue, 1970; J. A. T. Robinson, In the End God, 19682; S. D. F. 
Salmond, The Christian Doctrine of Immortality, 1903°; J. Schneider, kolazé etc., TDNT III 
814-17; G. Schrenk, diké, TDNT II 178-82; and ekdikeo etc., TDNT II 442-46; A. N. Sherwin- 
White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament, 19637; V. F. Storr, Christianity and 
Immortality, 1918; R. de Vaux, Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions, 1961, 143-63. 

(b). J. Blinzler, “‘Die Strafe fiir Ehebruch in Bibel und Halacha”, NTS 4, 1957-8, 32-47; H. Goll- 
witzer, ‘“‘Das Wesen der Strafe in theologischer Sicht”’, EvTh 24, 1964, 195 ff.; E. Kasemann, 
‘‘R6mer 13 in unserer Generation’, ZTK 56, 1959, 16 ff.; A. Strobel, “Zum Verstandnis von 
Rom. 13”, ZNW 47, 1956, 67 ff. 

Pure, Clean 

The study of religions reveals a widely held view that the world is divided into 
areas of purity and impurity; cf. the corresponding distinction between sacred 
(— Holy) and profane. Through a process of purification, originally of a cultic 
and ritual nature, separation can be effected from areas of impurity (e.g. dirt, 
disease) and unclean powers (e.g. foreign gods, demons, or one’s own sin), so as 
to achieve the state of purity needed for participation in the cult or enjoyment of 
the blessing of God. The Gk. language has two adjectives signifying purity: hagnos 
and katharos. hagnos is a word originally connected with a root meaning holy; it 
signifies a qualitative holiness or. purity belonging to the deity and the associated 
things or persons (cultic objects and officials). More common are katharos and its 
cognates, indicating cultic, physical or moral cleanliness in persons and things. 
In the NT words from both roots are found in a specifically limited and usually 
metaphorical sense. 

a ce ayvoc (hagnos), pure, holy; ayviC@ (hagnizd), purify; 
| ayes ayveia (hagneia), purity, chastity, propriety; ayvicpdc 
(hagnismos), purification; ayvotnyc (hagnotés), purity, sincerity. 

CL hagnos, adj. from the vb. hazomai which is in turn derived from* hagiomai, to 

stand in awe of someone, originally meant that which inspires (religious) awe, 
tabu (— Godliness, art. sebomai). In secular Gk. usage hagnos is found from Homer 
onwards. In religious language it is primarily an attribute of deity; then it refers 
to things having some relation to the deity. It thus comes to mean holy, in the sense 
of pure. Ritual purity is in mind here, e.g. avoidance of blood-guilt, touching 
corpses. Since to the primitive mind sexual intercourse also makes a person 



ritually unclean, hagnos came to mean chaste. The originally cultic, religious term 
was then transferred to the sphere of morality, and is frequently used in the 
Hellenistic period in the sense of innocent, morally faultless. It is also used as a 
compliment for faultless execution of office. From hAagnos are derived the vb. 
hagnizo, to purify (by means of expiatory rites), first found in Soph., and the cognate 
noun hagnismos, purification. Both terms are limited to the cultic sphere. hagneia, a 
noun derived from hagnos, is likewise found first in Soph., and is used of cultic 
purity, chastity, purity of mind. Another noun derived from hagnos is hagnotés, 
which is unknown outside the NT and means purity, moral blamelessness. 

OT 1. In the LXX hagnos is rare (11 examples), since the word normally used for 
cultic purity is — katharos. hagnos translates the Heb. tahdér, ritually pure, and 
zak, morally upright. In distinction from hagios (Heb. gad6§, set apart for God, 
appropriate to God, — holy), and katharos, which refers to both cultic and ethical 
purity, the particular nuance of hagnos is one of integrity: e.g. Ps. 12:6, ‘““‘The 
promises of the Lord are promises that are pure’”’ (cf. Ps. 19:8); Prov. 20:9, ““Who 
can say, I have made my heart clean; I am pure from my sin?”’ (cf. Prov. 15:26; 
21:8). It is significant that hagnos is found chiefly in the Wisdom Literature. 

2. More common in the LXX is the vb. hagnizo, which describes the measures 
taken to achieve eligibility for the cult. Whereas hagios (— holy) always includes 
the thought of the power and might of that which is holy, hagnizo expresses con- 
sistently the removal of what is not seemly (e.g. Exod. 19:10, washing of garments; 
Num. 6:3, abstinence from alcohol), especially in the sense, to purify oneself from 
sin or uncleanness (hith. of hata’, e.g. Num. 8:21; 19:12). hagneia also refers in 
the OT (Num. 6:2-21, law of the Nazirite; 2 Chr. 30:19, sanctuary) and Apoc. 
(1 Macc. 14:36, temple) to ritual purity. 

NT 1. In the NT only hagnizo and hagnismos (only at Acts 21:26) occur in their 

proper meaning, ritual purification: once in connexion with the Jews before 
the Passover (Jn. 11:55); later when Paul takes a vow in Jerusalem (Acts 21 :24— 
26; 24:18). In Jas. 4:8; 1 Pet. 1:22; 1 Jn. 3:3, on the other hand, hagnizo refers to 
moral purification. hagnos is lacking in the Gospels, Heb. and Rev. altogether; 
it is found only in the epistles, where Hellenistic influence is noticeable. It means: 
(a) chaste (2 Cor. 11:2; Tit. 2:5); (b) innocent with regard to something (2 Cor. 
7:11); (c) morally pure, upright: said of Christ (1 Jn. 3:3); in respect of a Christian’s 
behaviour (1 Tim. 5:22; 1 Pet. 3:2; Phil. 4:8); as an attribute of wisdom (Jas. 
3:17). The adv. hagnos refers to sincerity in Christian service (Phil. 1:17); the noun 
hagneia to moral purity and blamelessness (1 Tim. 4:12; 5:2). | 

2. This survey of the occurrence and meaning of this root in the NT shows that 

the original significance, i.e. ritual purity, no longer has a great part to play. This is 
understandable, since it was only the Jewish Christian community in Jerusalem 
which clung to the temple cult and therefore had to observe the ordinances con- 
nected with it (Acts 3:1; 21: 18-26). To all the Gentile churches, ritual purification 
probably meant nothing, for nowhere in the NT — apart from the apostolic decree 
(Acts 14:28—29), which was intended to make it possible for Gentile and Jewish 
Christians to live together in mixed churches — are cultic regulations for Christians 
to be found. The concept of purification gains however a new meaning, for the 
term is used to express the moral purity which is demanded in the behaviour of 



Christians. Here the starting point is the fact that Christ is hagnos, pure, i.e. without 
sin (1 Jn. 3:3). Because he is pure, those who belong to him should also be pure. 
Through his unique sacrificial death Christ has not only made the normal sacri- 
fices of the temple cult unnecessary, but he has also exposed their real meaning. 
It is a similar situation with the purity which he gives his own. It is more than ritual 
purity. Purity and integrity are, moreover, not merely human virtues: they indicate 
the relation of a person to God. Therefore this term is no longer used of sexual 
purity or abstinence. The NT term for that is enkrateia (— Discipline). 
H. Baltensweiler 

[xabapéc | KaGapoc (katharos), clean, pure; KaQaipw (kathaird), to 
EOS clean, make clean; éxxa@aipmw (ekkathairo), clean out; 
Kaba pila (katharizo), cleanse, purify; xaOapdotne (katharotés), cleanness, purity; 

Kaba pias (katharismos), cleansing; dkda@aptoc (akathartos), unclean; axaGapoia 
(akatharsia), uncleanness; mepixa0apya (perikatharma), refuse, offscouring. 

CL The family of words which go with katharos embraces the realms of physical, 
cultic and ethical purity. 

1. The adj. katharos (derivation obscure, probably nothing to do with Latin 
castus) is common from Homer onwards, and means: (a) originally, clean, in a 
physical sense as opposed to rhyparos = dirty (e.g. pure, clean water, Eur. Hippoly- 
tus 209); (b) clean, in the sense of free, without things which come between, as 
opposed to plérés or mestos, full (e.g. en kathar6, Homer I/. 23, 61); (c) ritually 
clean, as opposed to akathartos, unclean; (d) in a religious sense, morally pure (e.g. 
katharos adikias, Plato, Republic 6, 496d; katharos cheiras, Hdt., 1, 35). 

The cognate vb. kathairo meant originally to clean, sweep, cleanse (Diod.Sic. 
19, 13, 4); in the Koine it means to clean (in the NT only at Jn. 15:2). The com- 
pound vb. ekkathairod (Homer) expresses an intensification of the primary meaning; 
to sweep out, cleanse thoroughly (e.g. Hdt. 2, 68; in the NT, 1 Cor. 5:7; with an 
accusative of the one cleansed, 2 Tim. 2:21). More common is the later Hellenistic 
vb. katharizo, to cleanse, in physical, ritual or religious sense (e.g. Josephus, Ant. 
10, 70, to purify the land). 

The noun katharotés goes back to cl. Gk. (Xen., Mem. 2, 1, 22; Plato, Laws, 
778c), and means cleanness, in both literal and figurative senses. The later Helle- 
nistic term katharismos, which replaces the Attic katharmos, is found first as a 
technical term in agriculture, and then generally in the sense of physical or ritual 
cleaning (Michigan Papyri 185, 16). 

The negative terms formed by the addition of alpha-privative, i.e the adj. 
akathartos and the noun akatharsia, refer to the whole realm of uncleanness, 
ranging from menstruation to moral pollution through wrongdoing (cf. Plutarch, 
De Placitis Philosophorum 5, 6; Plato, Laws 4, 716e). perikatharma, a substantival 
form from perikathairo, to clean all round, from every side, refers to what is 
removed in a thorough clean-up. It means dirt, refuse (Epict. 3, 22, 78; in the NT 
only at 1 Cor. 4:13, offscouring of the world; — Dirt). 

2. In Gk. religion the system of purificatory and expiatory rites had nothing to 
do with penitence for sin or an inward purification of the heart. It was concerned 
rather with the warding off of demonic spirits, which wandered round about, by 



means of exorcism and ritual acts. It thus had an apotropaic function. A woman 
after childbirth, and also her child, were unclean. So too was a dead person. 
Those who touched them must therefore undergo purification, which removed the 
uncleanness which had come from without. A person who shed blood, even if he 
had done so in the course of executing justice, had to be cleansed. The blood of an 
— animal was poured over the hands of the person who had become unclean, so 
banishing death by death, i.e. by the substitutionary sacrifice of an animal. Later 
these rites, which had affected the whole of people’s ordinary and religious life, 
were given a deeper, ethical meaning. The credit for this goes to the Orphics and 
Pythagoreans, but above all to the mystery religions and the philosophers. This 
transformation in the concept of purity may be seen from the inscription on the 
temple of Asclepius at Epidaurus: “Let only the pure cross the threshold of the 
fragrant temple: and no one is pure, save he who has holy thoughts.’’ A person 
who was initiated was called kekatharmenos (Plato, Phaedo 69c). 

The Delphic oracle had a great influence. Not only was it responsible for puri- 
fication in cases of murder; quite apart from this, the spirit of Delphi, which 
inspired the whole life of Greece, led to a relaxation and deeper interpretation of 
the old purificatory rites (cf. T. von Scheffer, Hellenistische Mysterien und Orakel, 
1940, 139; — Prophet cL). It was a liberating spirit, a spirit of moderation, that 
went out from Delphi. It is typified by the third of the old inscriptions which adorn 
the Temple of Apollo at Delphi: along with gnothi seauton, ‘‘Know thyself”, and 
meden agan, “‘Nothing overmuch’’, are the words metanoei hamarton, “‘Repent [i.e. 
get a new spirit] if you have sinned” (cf. R. Pfeiffer, ‘“The Image of the Delian 
Apollo and Apolline Ethics’’, Journal of the Warburg Institute 15, 1952, 20 f.). 

3. The concept “‘pure” and its opposite “impure” are woven into the history 
of all religions. In primitive culture there is the idea of a supernatural force (tabu), 
possessing dangerous powers which are conceived in material terms and thought 
to be transferable by physical contact. In particular, — birth, — death, and sexual 
processes (discharges, menstruation, intercourse) are associated with the power- 
charged tabu, making subsequent purification necessary where there has been 
contact with them. As religions developéd, this supernatural force came to be seen 
not only as a threat, but also as a friendly deity. A person wishing to approach the 
deity must be careful not to offend the latter by uncleanness which contradicts its 
nature. This is how the demand arose for cultic purification. The priest must 
undertake purificatory rites, removed and washing away what is unclean, in order 
to free the individual from the evil and demonic influences which constantly 
threaten him and cause him anxiety. Not until later was purity conceived in an 
inward sense, with the result that it was freed from ritual and linked instead to 
morality, so gaining an ethical character. In the comparative study of religions, 
however, the general rule is that purificatory rites are divorced from ethics, and 
this may be traced throughout the whole range of world religions. 

oT 1. In the LXX katharos renders 18 different Heb. equivalents, but by far the 
most frequent is ¢ahér, in the sense of ritual purity. Occasionally the LXX also 
translates the Heb. naqi, pure, innocent (Job 4:7), and zakak, to be bright, pure, 
innocent (Job 15:15) by katharos. The negative adj. akathartos corresponds to 
tame’, the noun akatharsia to tum’dh, both principally in the sense of ritual 


impurity (e.g. Lev. 5:3; 15:24). katharizé is the equivalent of the qal and piel of 
tahar (Lev. 12:7, 8), and sometimes also of the piel of hata’ (Lev. 8:15). katharizo 
can thus also be used as a synonym for exhilaskesthai, to atone (Lev. 16:30). The 
majority of references to purity and impurity are widely thought to come from 
relatively late texts, viz. the Priestly writer and the prophet Ezekiel with his back- 
ground in priestly circles. But this does not preclude the possibility that the dis- 
tinction between clean and unclean goes back to a very early period. Within 
the same realm of ideas are the concepts of — holy (Heb. gad6s; LXX hagios), and 
profane (Heb. h6/; LXX koinos; — Fellowship, art. koinonia). 

2. In the OT also purity and impurity are spoken of chiefly in a cultic sense. 
The distinction between them is inseparably connected with Israel’s belief in 
Yahweh. It is grounded on the presupposition that uncleanness and Yahweh are 
irreconcilable opposites. Purity is therefore regarded, as a rule tacitly, as the norm, 
qualifying one to take part in the cultus; impurity is inimical to Yahweh and 
separates one from worship and from God’s people, so that it must be opposed 
and purged out as an abomination (Lev. 7:19 f.). This distinction can be described 
as the pre-ethical foundation of the cultic and secular life of Israel. 

(a) It begins with the person himself. Diseases, especially — leprosy, render 
him unclean. One of the duties of the priests is to pronounce a person who has 
contracted leprosy either clean or unclean by means of the so-called declaratory 
formulae (e.g. Lev. 13:17, 44). Here the close association between sin and disease 
in the faith of Israel finds expression. Likewise sexual processes are regarded as 
making a person unclean (emission of semen, Lev. 15:16; menstruation, Lev. 
15:19; unhealthy discharges, Lev. 15:2, 25; intercourse, 1 Sam. 21:5 f.; adultery, 
Lev. 18:20; rape, Gen. 34:5; homosexuality, Lev. 18:22; and other sexual 
aberrations, Lev. 18:6 ff.). These regulations are directed in particular against the 
sexual practices of the Canaanites. A dead body is unclean in the highest degree; 
its uncleanness is transferred to every person who is present and also to open 
vessels (Num. 19:14 f.). Whereas in general, cleansing with clear water is suffi- 
cient, in cases of defilement by contact with a dead body special cleansing water, 
previously mixed with the ashes of a red heifer, is necessary (Num. 19). This practice 
expresses Israel’s decisive rejection of all forms of a cult of the dead, as found in the 
religions round about. 

(b) Lev. 11 presents a catalogue of clean and unclean — animals, which may or 
may not be eaten. The purpose of this distinction is to guard against animal wor- 
ship (which was occasionally practised in the Northern Kingdom, | Ki. 12:28 ff.), 
to show Israel’s rejection of animals symbolizing foreign religions (e.g. the pig in 
the Adonis-Tammuz cult), and to formulate health regulations. Foreign territory 
is likewise regarded as unclean, since foreign gods are worshipped there (Amos 
7:17). Even Israel’s own land and his temple can be defiled by idolatry (Jer. 2:7; 
7:30). The temple, the altar and the most holy place, as the abodes of Yahweh, 
are the places of greatest purity and sanctity; because of the uncleanness of the 
Israelites, they need regular purification by the ritual of atonement (Lev. 16). 

(c) Even the prophets, with the occasional polemic against the cult, do not 
abandon the distinction between clean and unclean. They extend and spiritualize 
the cultic concepts, for in criticizing cultic abuses they introduce a concept of 
purity which has to do with people and their behaviour (Jer. 2:23; Isa. 6:5). The 



concept of impurity thus approaches those of — guilt and — sin (Jer. 33:8; 
Ezek. 39:24; cf. Ps. 51). 

Thus when the OT distinguishes between clean and unclean, it is far from being 
concerned merely with cold, legalistic superficialities. Rather, we have here evidence 
of the dynamic struggle of the Yahweh religion, as it sought to establish itself in 
the face of rivals constantly appearing in the cultic world of Israel and her neigh- 
bours. “‘It is precisely in this grasp of the material side of life by the cultic sphere 
that Jahweh’s urgent will to be immanent comes to expression, a will which is 
wholly unsatisfied with Israel’s spirituality” (G. von Rad, Old Testament Theology, 
I, 1962, 279). 

3. It was left to late Judaism to surround the laws of purity with a multitude of 
casuistic and sometimes grotesque prohibitions and commands, which made the 
regulations into a law which was hard to fulfil. A —> Pharisee was defiled even by 
sitting on the clothes of one of the “‘people of the land’ (‘am ha@’ares), who could 
not read the Torah (Hagigah 2:7). 

The commonest act. of ritual purification was the washing of the hands before 
the blessing at a meal (cf. Jn. 2:6; Mk. 7:3 f.). The requirement of hand-washing 
applied also to the hours of prayer (— Baptism; — Hand). According to Rabbi 
Johanan (c. A.D. 250), the recitation of the Shema must be done as follows to be 
perfectly correct: one must relieve oneself, wash one’s hands over it, put on one’s 
phylacteries (the small cases containing parchment rolls on which were written 
the passages Exod. 13:1—10; 11-16; Deut. 6:4—-9; 11:13—21), and then speak and 
pray the “Hear, O Israel” (R. Meyer, TDNT III 421 f.; ~ Command; — Hear). 

The regulations about purity were meant as a guide for life, but they became a 
heavy burden. Certainly there can be found in Judaism the development of a 
spiritual and ethical view of purity, e.g., when Rabbi Meir (c. A.D. 150) says, 
““Cleanse and sanctify yourself from every sin and fault” (Berakoth 17a). But this 
and similar sayings were unable to check the development of a legalistic system of 
casuistry. | 

4. The Essenes were even stricter than the Pharisees on matters of purity and 
purification. Since they regarded themselves as the priestly, redemptive community 
of the end-time, they made the rules for the priests, particularly those regarding 
purity, binding on the whole community. Daily immersion was practised in the 
water-pools which have been uncovered in the excavations of the ruins at Qumran. 
If a person offended in some way against the rules of the community he was 
excluded temporarily or permanently from the purity of the many (.e. the whole 
community) (e.g. 1QS 6:16 f., 25; 7:3, 16). At the same time, however, fig. language 
is used when an individual gives thanks that God has cleansed him from sin (1QS 
3:4-12; 4:20 f.). (For further discussion see A. R. C. Leaney, The Rule of Qumran 
and its Meaning, 1966, especially 141 f., 191 f.) 

NT In the NT katharos and its cognates occur in nearly all the writings. Instances 

are rather more common in the Synoptic Gospels, Heb. and the Pastoral © 
Epistles than elsewhere. Paul seldom uses the words. On the whole, references to 
purity are not so frequent as, for instance, those to words derived from hagios, > 
holy. It is not possible without bias to speak of a unifying concept of purity in the 
NT. Here too we find katharos used in the physical (e.g. Rev. 15:6), cultic (e.g. 



Matt. 8:2-4; Lk. 17:14) and spiritual (e.g. Matt.5:8) senses. However, the 
concept of purity did acquire a new character through the preaching and person of 

1. (a) Jesus developed his doctrine of purity in the struggle against Pharisaism. 
In Matt. 23:25 f. he rejects the observance of ritual regulations on the ground 
that this kind of purity is merely external. Behind the practices of the Pharisees 
lurks the misguided notion that uncleanness coming in a concrete form from 
outside can defile a person (Matt. 15:11, 16 f. par. Mk. 7:15, 18). The opposite 
is true: ‘““The things which come out of a man are what defile him’”’ (Mk. 7:15, 20 
par.). For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, murder, wicked- 
ness, fornication, foolishness etc. (Mk. 7:21-23). Jesus countered the Pharisaic 
emphasis on cleansing the hands with a demand for purity of heart, as expressed 
in the sixth Beatitude: “Blessed are the pure. in heart, for they shall see God”’ 
(Matt. 5:8). “In Ps. 24.3 f. access to God’s presence during Temple worship is 
for him who has ‘clean hands and a pure heart’. These are the spiritually ‘pure’, 
not the ritually or ceremonially clean. To ‘see God’ is a pictorial expression 
indicating the bliss of fellowship with God in the Kingdom (cf. Ps. 17.15; 42.3; 
4 Ezra 7.98 — ‘for they hasten to behold the face of him whom they served in life and 
from whom they are to receive their reward when glorified’) (D. Hill, The Gospel 
of Matthew, New Century Bible, 1972, 113). For the pure love of Jesus, i.e. the love 
which surrenders itself fully to God and to other men, there are no longer any 
unclean foods (Mk. 7:19c). Jesus sat down at table with tax collectors and sinners 
(Mk. 2:13-17). He did not repel the lepers, but healed them (Lk. 17:11-19). He 
talked to — Samaritans (Lk. 17:19c) and even Gentiles (Matt. 8:5-13; 15:21-28; 
—> Greek; —» People). This does not mean that Jesus annulled the purity regula- 
tions of the Torah (cf. e.g. Lk. 17: 14-17). But in removing the dividing barriers of 
the ceremonial law, and turning the Pharisaic concept of purity on its head by 
demanding purity of heart and of character, he broke through the innermost 
essence of Judaism and left it behind him (cf. E. Kasemann, Essays on New Testa- 
ment Themes, SBT 41, 1964, 39 f.). 

(b) For the Christian community at Jerusalem, at least, it was a very difficult 
matter to bring themselves to step across the barriers which Jesus had broken down; 
for as Jewish Christians they held on at first to the ceremonial law and the temple 
cultus. This difficulty is illustrated by the story of the conversion of the centurion 
Cornelius as a result of Peter’s preaching (Acts 10:1-11:18). In a vision Peter 
becomes aware of the invalidity of the outward distinction between clean and 
unclean, ‘What God has cleansed, you must not call common” (Acts 10:15). In 
the apostolic decree of the Jerusalem council, ritual requirements were laid upon 
the Gentile church at Antioch (Acts 15:29; + Noah on possible link with the 
‘““Noachian decrees’’); but on the same occasion the view prevailed that God has 
made no distinction between Jews and Gentiles, but cleanses men’s hearts by faith 
(Acts 15:9). 

2. (a) Paul was the first to recognize clearly that Christ had brought about the 
end of the law, and that accordingly all cultic and ceremonial distinctions had 
become obsolete. In the controversy between the strong brethren and the weak, 
distinguished by their attitude to the eating of meat which had been used in heathen 
sacrifice, Paul comes down resolutely on the side of the strong: “‘Everything is 



clean” (Rom. 14:20; cf. also Tit. 1:15; ““To the pure [through faith] all things are 
pure’). For him the only reason for observing any kind of legalistic rules (e.g. 
religious festivals, Rom. 14:5; abstinence from alcohol, Rom. 14:21) is regard for 
the weaker brother. There is no longer any question of their having absolute 

(b) In the Johannine writings purity is brought into relation with the saving 
death of Jesus. In other words, it is given an explicit christological foundation: 
“The blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin” (1 Jn. 1:7; cf. 1:9). The story 
of the washing of the disciples’ feet also shows that those who allow themselves 
to be served (as in baptism) by Jesus are clean (Jn. 13:10; cf. also Eph. 5:26). 
Purity is mediated by the word of Christ (Jn. 15:3). In Johannine thought, therefore, 
purity is not an ethical quality which a man must work for, but the outworking 
of the fact that the church belongs to Christ. 

(c) The Epistle to the Hebrews interprets the death of Jesus with the help of OT 
ritual concepts, in order to demonstrate the superior quality of the new covenant 
over the old (Heb. 9:13—14). In contrast to the purification of the OT temple by 
sacrifice, repeated every year, which the writer interprets as an annual reminder 
of sin (10: 1-4), the purification effected by the blood of Christ is valid once and for 
all. Moreover, it serves not only to bring outward purification, but rather cleansing 
from sin (1:3; 10:22). Like 1 Jn., Heb. links the concept of purity with that of > 
forgiveness (Heb. 9:22). 

(d) It is not until the Pastoral and Catholic Epistles (especially Jas., 1 Pet.) that 
the concept of purity gains in part an ethical character. The Epistles to Timothy, 
in language formally similar to the preaching of Jesus, exhort to purity of heart 
and conscience (1 Tim. 1:5; 3:9; 2 Tim. 2:22). Meanwhile in content, the focus 
shifts from the person of Jesus to didactic instruction: ‘““The aim of our charge 1s 
love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and sincere faith” 
(1 Tim. 1:5; cf. 1 Pet. 1:22). 

The Epistle of James shows a certain tendency to return to a concept of purity 
already discarded by Paul and John, in that it describes self-denial in the face of 
a sinful world as pure and undefiled religion (Jas. 1:27). The nearest the NT comes 
to traditional Jewish thinking is in the Revelation, with its talk of purity in terms 
of physically clean linen garments (15:6; 19:8, 14) and the new Jerusalem of pure 
— gold (21:18, 21). 

3. This survey of the history of these terms goes to show how variously, even 
in the NT, the purity which Jesus demanded, and which he conferred, was under- 
stood. Paul and John come nearest to showing its universal scope and liberating 
character; in the later writings a narrowing and moralizing tendency may be ob- 
served. The history of the concept demonstrates how the NT writers struggled to 
maintain an evangelical doctrine of purity, and how easy it is to fall back into a 
legalistic outlook. It is significant that in the NT comparatively little use is made 
of the idea of purity in preaching Christ or in Christian ethics. The preaching and 
teaching are dominated rather by key words like — discipleship, obedience (— 
Hear, art. hypakouo), sanctification (— Holy, art. hagios), or — love. Probably the 
concept of purity was not an appropriate image to convey the whole breadth of NT 
ethics, or even the preaching of Christ. All the more surprising and alarming is it, 
therefore, that in the course of the church’s history there have again and again 



been groups and sects which have taught that a rigorous and ascetic purity is a 
distinguishing mark of Christian faith, and which have often enough sought to 
impose this by laws and by compulsion. Frequently, like the Essenes, they have 
assumed the name of katharoi, pure ones. Their genealogy stretches from the church 
of Marcion, through the Montanists, Manichaeans and Donatists of the early 
church, the medieval Cathari, and the Anabaptist movement at the time of the Re- 
formation, to radical groups in the Pietist movement (Voetius, Arnold) — to 
mention only the most important. They all have in common a view of purity, which 
is, generally speaking, nearer to the radical Judaism of the Pharisees or Essenes, 
than to the NT doctrine of purity as introduced by Christ. This development shows 
that in Christian proclamation the struggle between — law and — gospel must 
constantly be fought anew, in order that a Christ-centred doctrine of purity may be 
achieved, liberating rather than bringing legalism and anxiety to men. 
H.-G. Link, J. Schattenmann 

—> Animal, — Baptism, — Defile, — Demon, — Dirt, ~ Hand, — Head, — Heart, 
—> Holy, — Leprosy, — Priest, — Sacrifice, — Sin 

(a). J. B. Bauer, ““Clean and Unclean”, EBT I 118-21; G. W. Buchanan, ‘“‘The Role of Purity in 
the Structure of the Essene Sect”, Revue de Qumrdn 15, 4, 1974, 397-406; C. H. Cave, ‘‘The 
Obedience of Unclean Spirits’, NTS 11, 1964-65, 93-97; F. Hauck, hagnos etc., TDNT I 122 ff.; 
J. Jocz, “Clean’’, ZPEB I 884-87; A. R. C. Leaney, The Rule of Qumran and its Meaning, 1966; 
G. van der Leeuw, Religion in its Essence and Manifestation, 1964°; R. Meyer and F. Hauck, 
katharos etc., TDNT III 413-31; M. Noth, ‘““‘The Laws in the Pentateuch: Their Assumptions and 
Meaning”’, in The Laws in the Pentateuch and Other Studies, 1966, 1-107; R. Pfeiffer, “The Image 
of the Delian Apollo and Apolline Ethics’’, Journal of the Warburg Institute, 15, 1952, 20 ff.; G. von 
Rad, Old Testament Theology, I, 1962, 272-79; L. E. Toombs, “‘Clean and Unclean’’, DB I 
641-48; G. Wagner, Pauline Baptism and the Pagan Mysteries, 1967. 

(b). J. Doller, Die Reinheits- und Speisegesetze des Alten Testaments, Alttestamentliche Abhand- 
lungen 7, 2 f., 1917; R. Hink, R. Rendtorff, and E. Lohse, “‘Rein, Unrein’’, RGG? V 939 ff.; K. 
Koch, “Reinigung, kultische’’, EXL III 576 ff.; W. Kornfeld, ‘“Reine und unreine Tiere im Alten 
Testament”, Kairos 7, 1965, 134-47; T. von Scheffer, Hellenistische Mysterien und Orakel, 1940; 
T. Wachter, Reinheitsvorschriften im griechischen Kult, Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und 
Vorarbeiten 9, 1, 1910. 



oBévvoui (sbennymi), quench, extinguish, quell. 

CL The underlying idea of the vb. is to extinguish by drowning with water, as op- 

posed to smothering; to allay or subdue, the latter especially metaphorically. The 
vb. is of ancient origin, and is found from Homer onwards. It remained virtually un- 
changed in its basic meaning throughout the centuries. In the classical authors it 
means literally to put out, quell, quench, check (cf. Lat. extinguere). When applied to 
liquids, it means to dry up, evaporate. In the passive the term is used occasionally of 
people becoming extinct, while in medical literature it describes the disappearance of 
inflammation. These, however, are rather special uses of an otherwise well- 
understood term. In both voices sbennymi lent itself readily to metaphorical usage. In 
a late Gk. papyrus it means to wash out, erase. 

oT In the LXX the term is found with its normal literal meaning, though 

metaphorical usage occurs in Cant. 8:7 (the quenching of love) and 4 Macc. 3:17 
(the quenching of passion) and occasionally elsewhere. The common Heb. equivalent 
is kabah, extinguish, quench (Lev. 6:5 f! [12 f.]; 2 Sam. 14:7; 21:17; 2 Ki. 22:17; 
2 Chr. 29:7; 34:25; Amos 5:6; Isa. 1:31; 34:10; 42:3; 43:17; 66:24; Jer. 4:4; 7:20; 
17:27; 21:12; Ezek. 21:3 f. [20:47 f.]; 32:7; Cant. 8:7). Occasionally it translates 
da‘ak, be extinguished (Job 18:5 f.; 21:17; Prov. 13:9; 20:20; 24:20; Isa. 43:17). In 
Job 30:8 it translates naka’, be scourged out of. There is no Heb. equivalent in Lev. 
9:2(9); Est. 4:17; Job 4:10; 16:15(16); 34:26; 40:12(7); Prov. 10:7; Wis. 2:3; 16:17; 
Isa. 42:4; Sir. 23:16; 28:12, 23; 3 Macc. 6:34; 4 Macc. 3:17; 9:20; 18:20. Sabar, 
break, is used in Ps. 104(103):11, and da‘ak in Ps. 118(117):12, where the ET has 
quench, but neither verse has sbennymi in the LXX. In Josephus, War 7, 405, it is 
used of extinguishing fire. 

NT sbennymi is used consistently in the NT in a literal sense (Matt. 12:20; 25:8; Mk. 
9:48; Eph. 6:16; Heb. 11:34) and also in a metaphorical sense (1 Thess. 5:19). 
In Eph. 6:16 the believer is urged to shelter behind an all-embracing — faith, so 
that he can deflect and extinguish all those evil temptations that would sear and con- 
sume the personality. The shield (thyreos) is the old wooden scutum familiar to the 
Romans, which protected most of the body. Its leather covering soaked in water ef- 
fectively stopped and extinguished tow-headed darts dipped in pitch which were used 
as fiery missiles. 
In 1 Thess. 5:19 the church is warned against any further quenching of the > 
Spirit, whose advent was marked by the likeness of fiery tongues (Acts 2:3; > Pen- 



tecost), by behaviour which is contrary to Christ’s will. The reference does not apply 
specifically to the cessation of speaking in tongues. “In v. 20 attention is directed to 
one particular gift, prophecy, but here the concern is more general: no gift of the 
Spirit is to be extinguished (sbennyte). The metaphor is especially vivid — the putting 
out of a flame or light — and is appropriate since ‘fire’ is associated with the Spirit 
(Mt. 3.11 = Lk. 3.16; Acts 2.3 f; 18:25; Rom. 12:11; 2 Tim. 1.6). If those who have 
been given gifts by the Spirit are either not allowed to exercise them within the com- 
munity or what they say and do is ignored then in effect the fiery power and light of 
the Spirit is quenched and the church is not built up (I Cor. 14.26; cf. W. C. van Un- 
nik, “ ‘Den Geist I6schet nicht aus’ (I Thessalonicher v. 19)’, NovT 10, 1968, 
255-69, for parallels from Hellenistic religion and culture)” (E. Best, A Commentary 
on the First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians, BNTC, 1972, 238). 

The expression “he will not break a bruised reed or quench a smouldering wick” is 
a quotation from Isa. 42:3 which occurs in the context of the application of the 
Servant Song of Isa. 42:14 to Jesus (Matt. 12:18:21). The passage shows that, “in 
refusing to quarrel with the Pharisees or to allow his Messiahship to be openly ac- 
knowledged, Jesus is the one who will not wrangle or cry aloud” (D. Hill, The Gospel 
of Matthew, New Century Bible, 1972, 214). For further discussion of this passage 
see B. Lindars, New Testament Apologetic, 1961, 144-52; K. Stendahl, The School 
of St. Matthew and its Use of the Old Testament, Acta Seminarii Neotestamentici 
Upsaliensis 20, 19677, 144-52; R. H. Gundry, The Use of the Old Testament in St. 
Matthew’s Gospel, Supplements to NovT 18, 1967, 110—16; > Serve. Commenting 
on the original meaning of the phrase in the context of Isa. 42, R. N. Whybray sees 
a contrast with the work of destruction of the earlier prophets. The Servant’s work 
“will be to handle the bruised reed with great care and to keep the dimly burning 
wick from going out: that is, to nurture the remains of faith and hope among the 
exiles, by announcing the imminent arrival of Yahweh’s universal rule” (Usaiah 
40-66, New Century Bible, 1975, 73). 

The description of > punishment in Mk. 9:48, “where their worm does not die, 
and the fire is not quenched”, is taken from Isa. 66:24 which Whybray sees as an 
early description of eternal punishment (op. cit., 294). The passage also influenced 
Sir. 7:17 and Jdt. 16:17. The picture is taken from the Valley of Hinnom (— Hell, art. 
gehenna) where human sacrifice had been offered during the monarchy (2 Ki. 23:10; 
Jer. 7:31; 32:35). Later it became the city’s rubbish dump, and unclean corpses 
which could not be otherwise buried were burnt there or left to decompose. For rab- 
binic teaching on this see SB II 9 f. 

The mention of the heroes of old who by faith ““quenched raging fire” (Heb. 11:34) 
is probably an allusion to Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego who were delivered 
from the fiery furnace for refusing to worship Nebuchadnezzar’s golden image (Dan. 
3; — Miracle, art. semeion, oT | (c) ). The readers of the epistle might also have to 
face a fiery ordeal in the near future (cf. the pyrosis of 1 Pet. 4:12; cf. F. F. Bruce, 
The Epistle to the Hebrews, NLC, 1964, 335). R. K. Harrison, C. Brown 

= doBeatoc (asbestos), inextinguishable, that which is not or 
| dofeotos | cannot be quenched. 


cL The earliest secular sense was that of unquenchable, though Aeschylus extended 

the meaning to signify ceaseless. As a noun it was used by Dioscorides and 
others of unslaked lime, and subsequently of plaster. By the time of Pliny, the fire- 
proof asbestos fibres (asbestus) were being made into fire-resistant clothing which 
was known as asbestinos. 

OT The adjective asbestos occurs once only in the LXX (Job 20:26), with some 
manuscript variations. It is not matched by any one word in the MT, the phrase 
lo’ nuppah, not blown upon, serving as the equivalent in Job 20:26. 

NT asbestos is almost as rare in the NT as in the LXX, occurring three times only 

(Matt. 3:12; Mk. 9:43; Lk. 3:17). The Matthean and Lucan references quoted 
from part of the eschatological teaching of John the Baptist, while Mk. 9:43 refers to 
the unquenchable — fires of > hell. Fire was the most powerful destructive force 
known in the ancient world, and the NT use of asbestos implies utter and complete 
destruction of whatever is rejected by God as unsuitable or unworthy. 

R. K. Harrison 

~ Fire, ~ Hell, — Pentecost, > Prophet, > Spirit, ~ Word 

(a). E. Best, A Commentary on the First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians, BNTC, 1972; F. 
Foulkes, The Epistle of Paul to the Ephesians, TC, 1963; F. Lang, sbennymi, TDNT VII 165 ff.; R. A. 
Ward, Commentary on I and 2 Thessalonians, 1973. 

(b). W. C. van Unnik, “ ‘Den Geist I6schet nicht aus’ (I Thessalonicher v. 19)”, NovT 10, 1968, 

Quiet, Rest, Silence, Sound, Voice, Noise 

ST: njovyia (hesychia), quiet, quietness, rest, silence; 7avyatw 
| ova (hesychazo), be quiet, be silent, rest; 7avyioc (hesychios), 

cL In non-biblical Greek hesychia is used of the quietness of peace (as opposed to 

war) (Thucydides), relief from pain (Plato), a place of solitude (Xenophon), and 
the tranquillity of the philosopher who escapes from the turmoil of politics (Plato). 
Herodotus uses the adjective hesychios to describe a disposition that is quiet. 
hesychazo commonly denotes a cessation of speech, work or conflict, a calming of 
oneself, or the imposition of silence. 

oT In the LXX hesychia is used in reference to freedom from war (1 Chron. 4:40; 

22:9), the stillness of night (Prov. 7:9), and tranquillity of life (Prov. 11:12; Ezek. 
38:11; 1 Macc. 9:58). The vb. hesychazo is often used of the peace that follows 
warfare (e.g. Jdg. 3:11, 30; 2 Ki. 22:20), also of refraining from speech (Neh. 5:8, 
Job 32:6), ceasing from a course of action (Job 32:1), relaxation (Job 37:8; Jer. 
46[26]:27), or even culpable inaction (Jdg. 18:9). 

NT 1. Luke. In the Lucan writings hesychazo denotes abstention from work (Lk. 
23:56), the cessation of an effort to convince (Acts 21:14), and the silencing of 
potential opposition (Lk. 14:4; Acts 11:18), while hesychia in Acts 22:2 portrays the 



silence that descended on the agitated Jerusalem crowd when they heard Paul ad- 
dress them in Aramaic, their native tongue. 

2. Paul. In 1 Thess. 4:11 Paul exhorts the Thessalonians to aim at leading an un- 
obtrusive life of tranquillity (hesychazein), or, to reproduce his oxymoron, to make it 
their ambition to be free of (inordinate) ambition. Moreover, they are to avoid the 
disorderliness of — busybodies and to attend quietly (meta hesychias, denoting an at- 
tendant disposition) to their business, and earn their own living (2 Thess. 3:12). Any 
eschatological excitement (cf. 2 Thess. 2:1—2) that produces corporate turmoil or in- 
dividual laziness is here repudiated. And the Christian should pray for conditions 
that will permit “a quiet and tranquil [hesychion] manner of life’’, a life free from out- 
ward disturbance and marked by inner tranquillity (1 Tim. 2:2). 

The apostle enjoins > women to listen silently (en hesychia) to the instruction 
given in the church and to show the necessary deference to their teachers (1 Tim. 
2:11). The public exposition of scripture (“to teach”) was outside a woman’s proper 
domain of service (but cf. Tit. 2:3—5), as was any exercise of ecclesiastical authority 
over a man. In the church she was to remain silent (einai en hesychia) (1 Tim. 2:12). 

3. Peter. Peter insists that a woman’s adornment should not be external but in- 
ward, “the imperishable ornament of a gentle and quiet [hesychiou] spirit” (1 Pet. 
3:4), a spirit which calmly bears the disturbances created by others and which itself 
does not create disturbances. M. J. Harris 

nyoc (echos), sound, noise, report; #yéw (echeo), make a 
? sound. 

CL In secular Greek échos (a later form of eche and closely related to echeo in 

meaning) denotes the sound of words (as opposed to their meaning) or of letters 
or of a voice. It can, like echeo, be used of an echo (Aristotle) and, in a technical 
medical sense, of ringing noises in the ears (Hippocrates). The verb echeo may 
describe the clanging of a metal shield (Herodotus) or the chirp of a grasshopper 

oT In the LXX echos occurs 23 times, rendering 4 different Heb. terms, and echeo 

22 times, representing 6 Heb. words. Both terms generally denote inarticulate 
sounds such as the blast of the trumpet (Exod. 19:16 [hazaq]; Ps. 150:3 |tega‘l), the 
roaring of water (Ps. 46 [45]:3 [hamah]; Isa. 17:12 [Sa’Gh, niph.]), or the tumult of a 
city (Ruth 1:19 [Adm, niph.]; 1 Sam. 4:15 [no equivalent]; 1 Ki. 1:41 [Aamdh], 45 
[hiim, niph.]). 

NT 1. There are 4 NT uses of echos. It denotes the roaring of the sea and the waves 

(Lk. 21:25), a sound (echos) from the sky like a violent blast of wind (Acts 2:2), 
the — trumpet-blast (Heb. 12:19), and (metaphorically) a rumour that was spread 
throughout a region (Lk. 4:37). 

2. 1 Cor. 13:1 contains the only NT use of echeo. Paul may be insisting that to ex- 
ercise the gift of glossolalia without love (i.e. without an interpretation that enabled 
all to understand and benefit, cf. 1 Cor. 14:5—12, 19) was to be as unedifying as “a 
noisy [echon] gong or a clanging cymbal” (RSV) that might be heard in pagan 



worship. Or he may be making the more general observation that to have the gift of 
tongues but no Christian love amounted to nothing more than paganism. 
M. J. Harris 

[Gof si guy (phone), sound, noise, voice, language; gwvéw 

(phoneo), make a sound, call, summon. 

cL To the Greeks phone signified an audible sound made by a living creature, and 
covered the whole range of animal noises or human sounds. As applied to man, it 

meant voice, speech (as articulate sound made by the voice) or statement (as signifi- 

cant speech). A deity was thought to have an extraordinary phone (cf. Acts 

12:21—22). phoneo, on the other hand, may denote the sound produced by a musical 
instrument, as well as by man or animal. 

oT In the LXX phone generally renders Heb. gé/ which denotes any audible sound 
such as the clap of thunder (Exod. 19:16) or the twittering of birds (Ps. 
104[103]:12), but not the organ of speech or speech itself. In several Psalms (e.g. 
Pss. 29[28]:3 f., 8; 104[103]:7) the creatorial and revelatory voice of God is 
described as thunder. To hear (i.e. obey) God’s voice was the essence of covenantal 
religion (1 Sam. 12:14) and true religion (Jos. 24:19—24: > Hear, art. akouo). By the 
first century the rabbis had a developed view of the bat qd/ (“daughter of a voice’’), 
an echo of a heavenly voice that was audible on earth and proclaimed some divine 
oracle or judgment. 
There are only 10 uses of phoneo in the LXX, the vb. being used of human speech 
(Ps. 115[113]:15; 3 Macc. 2:22), animal cries (Zeph. 2:14) and the trumpet-blast 
(Amos 3:6). 

NT 1. As in the LXX, so in the NT phone describes any noise or sound, whatever its 
source (whether animate or inanimate); for example, the wailing of Rachel (Matt. 
2:18), the rustling of wind (Jn. 3:8), the tumult of a crowd (Rev. 19:1). 

2. Not all human voices sound alike (Jn. 3:29; Acts 12:14) and each person has 
more than one “tone of voice” (Gal. 4:20). Speaking “in a loud voice |megale 
phone)” is not restricted to human beings (Lk. 23:23; Acts 7:57, 60; 14:10; 26:24) or 
the souls of martyrs (Rev. 6:9-10). Unclean spirits (Mk. 1:26; 5:7; Lk. 4:33, Acts 
8:7), angels (Rev. 5:12; 14:7, 9), or the archangel (1 Thess. 4:16) may speak this 
way. Particularly noticeable is the close association of this idea with (a) the praise of 
God by angels (Rev. 5:11—12) or men (Lk. 17:15—16; 19:37—38; Rev. 7:9—10); (b) 
the power of Jesus to raise the dead (Jn. 11:43; cf. 5:25, 28—29) and his authority as 
the risen Son of man (Rev. 1:10—12, 15); (c) the death of Jesus (Matt. 27:46 par. Mk. 
15:34; Matt. 27:50 par. Mk. 15:37; Lk. 23:46). 

3. The “voice from heaven” that figures so prominently in Rev. (e.g. 1:10; 4:1; 
10:8; 11:12) or that dialogues with Peter regarding Jewish food-laws (Acts 10:9—16) 
is distinguishable from the rabbinic Bath Qol by being generally identifiable as the 
personal voice of God (Rev. 16:17), Christ (Acts 10:13-14; 11:7—9), an > angel 
(Rev. 18:1—2) or some heavenly inhabitants (Rev. 11:15). Binding together the Syn- 
optic records of the baptism (Matt. 3:13-17 par. Mk. 1:9-11, Lk. 3:21 f.) and the 



transfiguration of Jesus (Matt. 17:1—8 par. Mk. 9:2—8, Lk. 9:28—36) is the reference 
to the voice “from heaven” (Mk. 1:11) or “from the cloud” (Mk. 9:7) that, like the 
Bath Qol, issues a public divine declaration that is audible on earth (Matt. 3:17; 17:5 
par.; but note the “You are” of Mk. 1:11; Lk. 3:22; cf. Jn. 12:28). The words “my 
Son” in this messianic confirmation clearly indicate that the voice belongs to God the 
Father (— Son of God). 

4. For John, to — hear (i.e. heed) the voice of Jesus (Jn. 10:3, 16, 27; 18:37) was 
to gain eternal > life (In. 5:24—-25; 6:68; 10:27—28). | 

5. Perhaps the solution to the apparent contradiction between Acts 9:7 and Acts 
22:9 with regard to Paul’s companions’ hearing “the voice’ during his encounter 
with the risen Christ outside Damascus is that in Acts 9:7 it was Paul’s voice (not 
Christ’s) they heard or that the genitive case phones after akouo (“hear”) denotes 
hearing either without understanding (Acts 9:7) or with understanding (Acts 22:7), 
while the accusative case phonen describes only hearing with understanding (Acts 
22:9; cf. 9:4; 26:14). 

6, Not infrequently the content of a phone is a solemn declaration of confession of 
faith (Acts 13:27; 19:34; 22:14; 24:21; 2 Pet. 1:17). 

7. The NT use of phoneo is restricted to the four Gospels, Acts and Rev. 14:18. In 
some cases (e.g. Lk. 8:8; 16:24; Acts 10:18) it is indistinguishable in meaning from 
krazo (> “cry out’), especially when ‘“‘in a loud voice” (megale phone) is added (e.g. 
Mk. 1:26). On occasion it denotes an urgent request (Matt. 27:47 par. Mk. 15:35) or 
a powerful command (Lk. 8:54; Jn. 12:17), and not infrequently an authoritative 
summoning (e.g. Mk. 9:35; Lk. 16:2) or a polite invitation (e.g. Lk. 14:12; Jn. 1:48). 
In Palestine the cock would crow (phoneo expresses this in Matt. 26:34, 74 par. Mk. 
14:30, 72; Lk. 22:34, 60) during the third watch (i.e. between midnight and 3 a.m.). 

M. J. Harris 

O. Betz, phone etc. TDNT IX 278-303; A. Marmorstein, Studies in Jewish Theology, 1950, 135 ff.; J. 
Schneider, echeo, TDNT II 954 f. 



Rabbi was in NT times a title of respect given by the common man to the scribes and 
by a student to his teacher. Gradually it became a technical term for a man who had 
received ordination (s‘mikah), i.e. who had received authority to act as judge in 
religious matters. This was conferred on him by the laying on of hands. The use of 
the term ordination must not be understood to mean that he was in any sense a 
minister in the Christian sense; he was exclusively an authority on the law (Torah) as 
it had come to be understood in the synagogue. This ordination was practised only in 
Palestine and ceased in the 4th cent. From then on smikah with the title of Rabbi has 
been conferred by the opinion of three rabbis that the person has adequate 
knowledge to expound the law. 

paBbi (rhabbi) (from Heb. rabbi, “my lord”), paBBovvert 
P (rhabbounei) (from Aram. rabbini), Rabbi, my master. 

On the alternative forms rhabbi and rhabbei see Funk $ 38. 

oT The Sem. rab means many or great. In the latter sense we find it both inside and 

outside Israel as a designation for chief officers (e.g. Jer. 41:1; 39:13; Dan. 1:3; 
Est. 1:8; Jon. 1:6, of a sea captain), and it has come down to us in the titles of certain 
Assyrian and Babylonian officials (e.g. 2 Ki. 18:17; Jer. 39:18). 

NT 1. In NT times it was a title of respect for the scribes and their pupils, the 

Pharisees (Matt. 23:7, 8). John the Baptist’s disciples addressed him by this title 
(Jn. 3:26). It is applied to Jesus a number of times: by Nicodemus (Jn. 3:2), by 
Nathanael (Jn. 1:49), by Peter (Mk. 9:5; 11:21), by Judas (Matt. 26:25, 49; Mk. 
14:45); it is also used by disciples and others in Jn. 1:38; 4:3; 6:25; 9:2; 11:8. 
rhabbounei comes from the Aram. equivalent of rhabbei; it is found in the mouth of 
Bartimaeus (Mk. 10:51) and of Mary Magdalene (Jn. 20:16). 

2. In the Gospels the commonest form of address for Jesus is didaskale, 1.e. 
teacher (— Teach); Luke uses the synonym epistata six times (Lk. 5:5; 8:24, 45; 
9:33, 49; 17:13). Frequently he is called Kyrie, i.e. + Lord. This is often no more than 
a mark of respect (e.g. Matt. 13:27). Since, however, in parallel passages in the Syn- 
optics, it is used where the others have Teacher — the best example is Matt. 8:25 
(kyrie), Mk. 4:38 (didaskale), Lk. 8:24 (epistata) — we are probably safe in assuming 
that where Jesus is called Lord it normally represents Rabbi. This title was normally 
avoided in Gk.-speaking circles as unfamiliar (cf. the translation in Jn. 20:16). In 
some contexts, however, it probably represents mari, i.e. My Lord. This was another 



title given to scholars. Behind “Teacher and Lord” in Jn. 13:13, 14 there lies rabbi 

3. The argument is occasionally met that, since the use of the title Rabbi becomes 
normal only after the destruction of the temple, the NT usage is evidence of the late 
composition of the Gospels. The argument is baseless, for the technical use of Rabbi 
clearly derives from an earlier popular usage. | H. L. Ellison 
— Law, — Pharisee, > Scribe 

(a). S. W. Barron, The Jewish Community, I-III, 1942; M. M. Berman, The Role of the Rabbi, 1941; ]J. 
Bowker, The Targums and Rabbinic Literature, 1969, 40-92; J. Braydé et al., “Rabbi”, Jewish 
Encyclopedia X 294-97; G. H. Dalman, The Words of Jesus, Considered in the Light of Post-Biblical 
Jewish Writings and the Aramaic Language, 1902, 327 ff., 331-40; J. D. M. Derrett, Jesus’ Audience, 
1973; A. J. Feldmann, The Rabbi and his Early Ministry, 1941; A. Finkel, The Pharisees and the 
Teacher of Nazareth, 1964; L. Finkelstein, ed., The Jews, I-III, 1971; W. Foerster, Palestinian 
Judaism in New Testament Times, 1964, 170—75; J. Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus: An In- 
vestigation into Economic and Social Conditions During the New Testament Period, 1969, 242—49; M. 
Kadushin, The Rabbinic Mind, 1952; E. Lohse, rhabbi, rhabbouni, TDNT VI 961-65, and The New 
Testament Environment, 1976, 115-20; C. G. Montefiore and H. Loewe, A Rabbinic Anthology, new 
edition 1974, 696-713; Moore, Judaism, III, 15 ff.; J. Neusner, “ ‘Pharisaic-Rabbinic’ Judaism”, 
History of Religions 12, 1972—73, 250—70; Schiirer, II, 1, 315 ff.; A. Steinsaltz, The Essential Talmud, 
1976; G. Vermes, Jesus the Jew, 1973, 113-28. 

(b). E. Lohse, Die Ordination im Spdtjudentum und im Neuen Testament, 1951; E. Nestle, “Rabbi”, 
ZNW 7, 1906, 184; SB I 916 f.; G. Schrenk, “Rabbinische Charakterkopfe im neutestamentlichen 
Zeitalter”, Studien zu Paulus, 1954, 9—45. 

Ready, Prepare, Gird 

The NT uses two different groups of words to convey the idea of preparing, equip- 
ping, being ready, or being resolved for something lying in the future. One is the 
group of words associated with hetoimos, the other the related vbs. kataskeuazo and 
paraskeuazo, derived from skeuos, vessel. As far as their meaning is concerned, the 
two groups cannot be clearly separated, except to say that kataskeuazo frequently 
brings out more strongly the idea of producing, making, constructing, while the 
hetoimos group refers to something already existing in a state befitting its purpose or 
use, or to the initiation of such a state. The same may be said of the zonnymi group. 
The meaning of this word is very similar. Originally it meant to gird; hence, to make 
oneself ready to depart, to stand in readiness. The words dealt with in this article 
describe the state of readiness primarily in its outward aspect. The other side of the 
picture, concerned with the inner attitude of a person, is supplied by the words con- 
sidered under the article on Guard, Keep, Watch. The distinction between these two 
groups of words is not clear-cut, and the dividing line is a fluid one. 

= Etowos (hetoimos), ready, prepared; étoiuws (hetoimos), 
readily; étoya¢w (hetoimazo), get ready, hold in 
readiness; étoiuaoia (hetoimasia), state of readiness, preparation; mpoetomacw 
(prohetoimazo), prepare beforehand. 

cL “The clear meaning of this word group is preparation both in the active sense of 
‘making ready’ and in the passive sense of ‘readiness’, ‘ability’ or ‘resolution’ ” 



(W. Grundmann, TDNT II 704). In classical Gk. it is not found in a religious sense, 
except that Homer (//. 10, 571) uses it in connexion with sacrifice: hiron 
hetoimassein. — 

oT In the LXX the words serve chiefly to translate kin (especially niph. and hiph.) 
and the principal meanings are to be firmly established, to establish, set up, make, 
prepare, get ready. | 

1. Though widely used in a secular sense, the words have a religious meaning, e.g. 
in connexion with the Passover (2 Chr. 35:4, 6, 14 f. LXX); sacrificial animals 
(Num. 23:1, 29); the ark (1 Chr. 15:1; 2 Chr. 1:4); the showbread (1 Chr. 9:32); the 
temple vessels (2 Chr. 29:19); the temple (2 Chr. 31:11); divine service (2 Chr. 
35:16). : 

2. Besides this, the words are used for the all-embracing divine activity of crea- 
tion, preparation, and establishing. 

(a) God has established the heavens (Prov. 3:19; 8:27) and founded the earth (Jer. 
28:15 LXX), founded the earth upon the rivers (Ps. 24[23]:2), and established the 
mountains (Ps. 65[64]:6). He prepares rain (Ps. 147[146]:8: cf. Job 38:25). His 
hands have made man (Ps. 119:73 LXX v./). He provides food for his creatures (Pss. 
65[64]:9; 78[77]:20; Job 38:41), and concerns himself with their destiny (Gen. 
24:14, 44), 

(b) God’s creation and providence extends also to his acts of salvation in history. 
He has established Israel to be his > people for ever (2 Sam. 7:24), and sworn that he 
will bring them into a land appointed for them (Exod. 23:20; Ezek. 20:6). Therefore, 
he creates food for them (Ps. 78[77]:19 f.), and despite their recurring unbelief and 
all their enemies, leads them into the sanctuary that his own hands have prepared 
(Exod. 15:17), prepared for everlasting glory (Sir. 49:12 LX X). Moreover, he sets up 
the kings of Israel and establishes their rule. If Saul had been obedient, the Lord 
would have established his kingdom for ever (1 Sam. 13:13), whereas David, who is 
appointed by him, is given the promise, “I will establish your descendants for ever” 
(Ps. 89[88]:4; cf. 2 Sam. 7:12; 1 Chr. 14:2; 17:11; 1 Ki. 2:24). 

(c) God does all this because his faithfulness is established in the > heavens (Ps. 
89[88]:2). There he has set up his throne from the beginning (Pss. 93[92]:2; 
103[102]:19), a throne founded upon righteousness and justice (Ps. 89|88]:14). He 
has established it for > judgment (Ps. 9:7), and for the judgment day he has prepared 
a sacrifice (Zeph. 1:7 f.; cf. Isa. 30:33; 14:21). 

3. The all-embracing work of God in creating and providing for his people does, 
however, demand self-preparation and readiness on man’s part. The — people and > 
Moses are called upon to prepare themselves (ritually) for the revelation of God at 
Sinai (Exod. 19:10 f., 15; 34:2; cf. Num. 16:16 LXX). In the prophets Israel is 
challenged: “Prepare to meet your God” (Amos 4:12; cf. Mic. 6:8; 2 Chr. 27:6). — 
This involves also the preparation of the — heart: “Those who fear the Lord will 
prepare their hearts” (Sir. 2:17 LX X; cf. Pss. 57[56]:7; 108[107]:1; 112[111]:7; Sir. 
2:1; 18:23; Prov. 23:12 LXX). 

NT 1. In the NT the noun hetoimasia occurs only once (Eph. 6:15), but the vbs. 
hetoimazo and prohetoimazo between them appear 43 times, and the adj. and 
adv. 20 times. All are relatively rare in the writings of Paul. When used with 



reference to objects, the meaning corresponds exactly with that in the OT. It is 
noteworthy, however, that the words of this group are not used with reference to 
God’s creation and providence in nature, and in a cultic setting only with reference to 
the Passover (Matt. 26:17, 19 par. Mk. 14:12, 16; Lk. 22:9, 13). Apart therefore 
from their wide use in a secular sense, they connote (a) God’s activity of creating and 
providing in terms of the history of salvation; (b) man’s self-preparation and 

2. In his song of praise Simeon declared: “My eyes have seen thy salvation which 
thou hast prepared in the presence of all peoples” (Lk. 2:30 f.; cf. 3:6; Isa. 52:10). 
Yet the world is unable in its own light to recognize the salvation present and 
promised in Jesus: God has prepared it for those who love him (1 Cor. 2:9). It is his 
purpose, by his free elective grace “to make known the riches of his glory for the 
vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory” (Rom. 9:23). Jesus 
comforts his fearful disciples by saying, “I go to prepare a place for you” (Jn. 14:2 f.; 
but cf. Matt. 20:23 par. Mk. 10:39). So too Peter is able to encourage the Christians 
undergoing trials in Asia Minor by telling them that they “by God’s power are guar- 
ded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time” (1 Pet. 1:5). 
God’s free mercy does not clash with, but rather forms the basis of, the doctrine that 
he is “ready to judge the living and the dead” (1 Pet. 4:5; cf. Matt. 25:34, 41). For 
the invitation “Come, for all is now ready” (Lk. 14:17; cf. Matt. 22:4, 8; and also Jn. 
7:6 “Your time is always ready’’) has gone out, but many have proved unworthy. No 
one, however, has cause to glory in himself, ““For we are his workmanship, created in 
Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk 
in them” (Eph. 2:10; cf. 2 Tim. 2:21). 

3. To this sphere, which is marked out by God’s work of preparation arising from 
his free elective choice ( > Elect), belong also the statements about man’s self- 
preparation and readiness. The OT call, “In the wilderness prepare the way of the 
Lord” (Isa. 40:3; > Cry, art. boao), is applied in the NT to John (Matt. 3:3 par. Mk. 
1:3, Lk. 3:4; cf. Lk. 1:17, 76), who by his preaching of repentance prepared the way 
for the coming of the Lord to his people. The Lord who has come is also, however, 
the Lord who is to come. He will a thief in the night, like a bridegroom to 
the wedding. The church is therefore exhorted to be ready for his coming (Matt. 
24:44 par. Lk. 12:40; cf. also Rev. 19:7; 21:2). Only those virgins who are ready 
when the bridegroom arrives will be let in (Matt. 25:10). The servant, who made 
nothing ready despite his knowledge of the master’s will, stands condemned (Lk. 
12:47). The church is therefore exhorted to be ready “for every good work” (Tit. 
3:1), “to make a defence to anyone” (1 Pet. 3:15), and also “to punish every dis- 
Obedience” (2 Cor. 10:6). This is not contradicted by the exhortation to be shod 
“with the equipment [hetoimasia, lit. “preparation” |] of the gospel of peace” (Eph. 
6:15). In this context Paul’s declaration should also be noted, that he is ready not 
only to be imprisoned but even to die for the Lord Jesus at Jerusalem (Acts 21:13; cf. 
by contrast Lk. 22:33). 2 Cor. 12:14 refers to Paul’s readiness to visit the 
Corinthians, despite his painful relations with them. 

S. Solle 

: Kataokevatw (kataskeuazo), make ready, prepare, build, 
KataoKéevacw ; a r 
construct, erect, equip, furnish; zapaoKxevatw (paras- 



keuazo), get ready, prepare (oneself); zapaokevy (paraskeue), day of preparation. 

cL Classical writers from Hdt. onwards use both these compounds in passages 

relating to the setting up and decoration of rooms and festal routes (e.g. Lysias, 
Thuc.), or to preparations of various kinds, e.g. dressing, the preparation of a meal 
(only paraskeuazo), the building of a ship or preparation for battle on land or sea 
(e.g. Hdt., Xen.). Kataskeuazo is also used in an inward sense, both in statements 
about the instruction of those who are learning, and concerning preparation for 
religious rituals (e.g. Aristotle, Josephus). Finally kataskeuazo is used in © 
philosophical logic and geometry of the construction of positive arguments (Aristo- 
tle, Plutarch, Euclid). 

oT 1. The LXX has kataskeuazo 30 times, of which 19 examples are in the 

Apocrypha. In Isa. 40:28; 43:7; 45:7, 9 the vb. refers to God’s work of prepara- 
tion in the sense of creation (in the Heb. text the terms are bara’, create, and yasar, 
create, form, shape). It is found in the same sense 5 times in Wis., Bar., and 4 Macc. 
Equipping with arms and warships is mentioned particularly in 1 Macc. (3:29; 
10:21; 15:3). The Apocrypha also uses kataskeuazo in connexion with the produc- 
tion of idols (Ep. Jer. 9, 45 f.; also in a LXX addition to Isa. 40:19). 

2. paraskeuazo is found 16 times in the LXX. Jeremiah uses it in 6:4; 46(26):9; 
50(27):42; 51(28):11 in connexion with preparing for battle. It is later used in reports 
of the preparation of a meal (Tob. 8:19; 2 Macc. 2:27; 6:21). 

3. Otherwise the two vbs. are used of various activities of preparation: construc- 
tion of a building (Num. 21:27; 2 Chr. 32:5); tilling a field (Prov. 24:27); spreading a 
net as a trap (Prov. 29:5). In 1 Sam. 24:3 paraskeuazo is used absolutely, clearly in a 
specialized sense, and is usually translated “relieved himself’. The context would also 
allow the sense “to change”. 

NT In the NT, where the simple form skeuazo is lacking, paraskeuazo is found 4 
times, always in a similar sense, and kataskeuazo 11 times. 

1. In Acts 10:10 it refers to the preparation of a meal. In 1 Cor. 14:8, where the 
meaninglessness of speaking in tongues is compared with the indecision brought 
about if the battle trumpet makes an indistinct noise, we have the metaphor of 
preparation for battle. 2 Cor. 9:2 f. deals with the Christians in Achaia, who have 
“been ready since last year” to take the collection to Jerusalem ( — Poor, art. ptochos 
NT 4). The next verse contains, in the same context, the adj. aparaskeuastos, which 
occurs nowhere else in the NT, and is here used of the possibility of “not being 

2. (a) kataskeuazo is used in 4 cases in connexion with sayings about John the 
Baptist’s function as the preparer of the way: Matt. 11:10; Mk. 1:2; Lk. 1:17; 7:27 
(— Elijah). In each case Mal. 3:1 is cited (with echoes of Exod. 23:20 and Isa. 40:3, 
where — hetoimazo is used), though Mal. 3:1 does not place any emphasis on 
kataskeuazo. In Lk. 1:17 the context is also one dealing with the Baptist, but here the 
subject is his task “to make ready for the Lord a people prepared”. 

(b) The other NT examples of kataskeuazo (almost all in Heb.; see below) refer to 
the construction and furnishing of a building. In these contexts we can always detect 
an association in content with man’s preparation for his meeting with God, as we 
also found in the examples from the Gospels. 1 Pet. 3:20 mentions (in connexion with 



man’s appropriation in baptism of the work of Jesus) the “preparation” of — Noah’s 

Half of the NT examples of kataskeuazo are in Heb. The OT concept of God’s all- 
embracing work of creation introduces the simile of the building of a house, and con- 
cludes that God has built everything (Heb. 3:3 f.). The underlying thought here is 
that of Christ as the builder of the church. The other places in Heb. where the word is 
used deal with building and furnishing according to a prescribed pattern: 11:7 speaks 
of Noah, building the ark in obedient faith, in order to prepare a way of escape. In a 
reflection similar to that found in the Synoptic Gospels, the word is here used of 
human preparation for God’s saving act. The same is true of Heb. 9:2, 6: an ex- 
haustive consideration of Christ’s unique sacrifice is introduced in verses 1-10 by a 
description of the tabernacle, which was set up and furnished with all manner of con- 
tents according to strict instructions (— Tent). | 

3. In secular Gk. paraskeue is found in the general sense of preparation, but the 
NT uses the noun paraskeue always as a temporal expression to indicate the “day of 
preparation” preceding a — Sabbath or Passover festival: Matt. 27:62; Mk. 15:42; 
Jn. 19:14, 31, 42. This suggests that in the NT, as in the OT, and in the same sense in 
all strands of the tradition, paraskeuazo and kataskeuazo are terms which have the 
sense of pointing to, preparing and equipping. They have the theological function of 
looking forward to God’s saving activity towards man, which is introduced by a 

ministry of preparation having about it the flavour of Advent. F. Thiele 
ie Caovvvult (zonnymi), gird; Cwvn (zone), girdle, belt; 
d1aC@vvou (diazonnymi), tie or gird around; mepiCw@vvout 

(perizonnymi), gird with, gird around. 

CL zonnymi (Homer), gird (oneself or another); diazonnymi (Thuc.), gird around, 
bind round oneself; and perizonnymi (Aristophanes), gird around, bind round 
(oneself or another with something), are used in the act. and mid., and the compound 
forms also in the pass. The noin zone, girdle, is derived from zonnymi. In classical 
usage zone is also found in the sense of a money belt or purse (cf. Mk. 6:8; > Bag). 

OT Generally speaking the OT uses the words in the same way as classical Gk., but 
the words of this group represent a number of different Heb. terms. The girdle 
(zone), made of linen or leather, served to tuck in the long skirts of the robe, in order 
to give greater freedom of movement. Hence the putting on of a girdle acquired the 
particular meaning of making oneself ready to go (2 Ki. 4:29), and to lay aside one’s 
girdle meant correspondingly to rest. A person in authority wore it as part of his 
finery (Isa. 22:21), an officer as his badge of rank. A richly embroidered girdle (Heb. 
‘abnet) formed part of the vestments of the high priest (Exod. 28:4, 39[35], 40[36]; 
29:9; 39:29[36:37]; Lev. 8:7, 13; 16:4). Several other Heb. nouns are also found in- 
cluding A“g6r (1 Sam. 18:4 v.J) and h%g6rdah (1 Ki. 2:5; 2 Ki. 3:21; Isa. 3:24). The 
most frequent Heb. vb. meaning to gird-is hagar (Exod. 29:9; Lev. 8:7, 13; 16:4; 
Jud. 18:11 v3; 1 Sam. 17:39; 25:13; Ps. 109[108]:19; Ezek. 23:15). 
A golden girdle, worn around the breast, is regarded as an angel’s mark of distinc- 
tion (Dan. 10:5; cf: Rev. 15:6). For mourning, a hair shirt or a rope is worn (Isa. 
3:24; cf. 2 Sam. 3:31). A broad leather girdle was used as armour, to protect the 



lower part of the body (1 Sam. 25:13), and so the expression “everyone who wears 
the girdle’ means “the men fit for war”. 

A metaphorical use occurs in e.g. Ps. 65(64):6 (Yahweh is “girded with might’’); 
Ps. 18(17):32, 39 (Yahweh girds the righteous “with strength’); and Ps. 30(29):11 
(girded “with gladness’’). Isaiah (11:5) looks forward to the new > David as an ideal 
king, the messiah, of whom it is said that “Righteousness shall be the girdle of his 
waist, and faithfulness the girdle of his loins.” 

NT In the NT the words are used in the same way as in classical Gk. and the LXX: 
(a) They occur in a direct sense without any specialized meaning in, e.g., Jn. 
21:7 (Peter girds himself with his outer garment because he does not wish to meet the 
Lord improperly dressed), and Lk. 17:8 (the servant girds himself in order to serve 
his master). Jn. 13:4 f. records how Jesus, the Master, changed his clothes in 
preparation for performing the task of a slave, a loving service which at the same 
time demonstrates the new order of life, which belongs to the age which is dawning. 

(b) In some passages “to gird” has, as in the LXX, the special meaning of making 
oneself ready to depart, i.e. to get moving, stand in readiness. Thus in Acts 12:8 
Peter is commanded to prepare himself for leaving the prison; and in Jn. 21:18 this 
same vigorous Peter who is well able to gird himself and make himself ready to go, is 
told that when he is old another will make him ready for a journey, and so determine 
the direction and destination of his life (probably an allusion to Peter’s martyrdom). 
In this sense, too, Lk. 12:35 (echoing Exod. 12:11) is to be understood as a challenge 
to the church to live unfettered by the world, in expectation of the Lord’s coming, in 
readiness to depart (cf. 1 Cor. 7:29—31). Matt. 10:9 par. Mk. 6:8 further add to the 
picture of the disciples’ way of life as they live in expectation of the end, by telling 
them not to secure themselves financially, but to leave everything to God’s provision. 

(c) According to Mk. 1:6, John the Baptist did not wear over his clothing the linen 
girdle customary among nomads, but a leather one (cf. 2 Ki. 1:8). His appearance is 
to be seen (following Mal. 3:1; 4:5) as that of > Elijah redivivus, the eschatological 
forerunner of the messiah. His clothing does not indicate hostility to culture, or es- 
pecial asceticism, but is to be explained, like the location of his ministry, in terms of 
wilderness typology. The rough mantle of camel’s hair was the recognizable garb of a 
prophet going back to Elijah and Elisha (1 Ki. 19:19; 2 Ki. 2:13 f.; cf. Zech. 13:4). 
John’s garb proclaimed his conscious prophetic calling (cf. C. H. H. Scobie, John the 
Baptist, 1964, 128). 

In the vision of Rev. 1:13 the golden girdle marks the exalted Christ as the true 
high — priest, as does his long robe (Exod. 28:4; see OT above). 

In Acts 21:11 Agabus (like the prophets of the OT; cf. Isa. 20:2; Jer. 13:1 ff.) 
carried out a symbolic action with Paul’s girdle (a long cloth worn about the waist), 
to indicate the coming arrest of Paul. “The accompanying word of interpretation 
‘Thus says the -Holy Spirit!’ corresponds to the OT ‘Thus says Yahweh!’” (E. 
Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles, 1971, 602). 

(d) perizonnymi is used in a metaphorical sense, with en of the instrument, in Eph. 
6:14, which echoes Isa. 11:5 LXX. The believers are to put on God’s — “truth” like 
a military girdle, which can protect them against the attacks of the evil one. 

F. Selter 
— Clothe 


W. Grundmann, hetoimos etc., TDNT II 704 ff.; A. Oepke, zonnymi etc., TDNT V 302-8. 

Reason, Mind, Understanding 

Since Kant reason (Lat. ratio) has meant the whole range of man’s intellectual 
powers, bringing together into a single whole the individual faculties of thought, 
knowledge and understanding. It presupposes positive data, objects or facts which it 
perceives. The Gk. term nous is capable of embracing all the instruments of sensual 
and conceptual perception, and depending on the context it can mean sense, un- 
derstanding, thoughts, or reason. dianoia and synesis, by contrast, belong more to 
the narrower, intellectual category of discursive thought. synesis contains in addition 
the existential components of mature and experience-based insight. The vb. 
epistamai, to understand, know, is not given separate consideration here; it expresses 
the result of a process of perception, i.e. knowledge, cognizance (in the NT it is only 
used with any frequency in Acts). In the NT the relation of faith to knowledge is 
thought out and discussed chiefly by Paul. 

7 vobds (nous), mind, intellect, understanding, reason, 
thought; voéw (noeo), apprehend, perceive, understand, 
gain insight into; voyjua (noema), thought, mind; dvdéntoc (anoetos), unintelligent, 
foolish; dvoia (anoia), folly; d1avdnua (dianoema), thought; didvoia (dianoia), un- 
derstanding, intelligence, mind, thought; dvovéytoc (dysnoetos), hard to understand; 
Evvoia (ennoia), thought, knowledge, insight; katavoéw (katanoeo), notice, observe, 
consider, contemplate. 

cL 1. (a) The Gk. word nous, attested since Linear B, probably goes back 

etymologically to the root *snu (cf. Ger. schnaufen, to pant; schnuppern, to sniff). 
Originally it refers to the inner sense, directed at an object; then, disposition, un- 
derstanding, insight, reason, mind. Along with feeling and will, understanding 
belongs, as the ability to think, to the inner powers of man (e.g. Parmenides, 16, 2). 
Plutarch (On the Education of Children 8) puts logos, > word, and nous in a definite 
relationship to one another: the understanding rules the word, the word serves the 
understanding. nous is also, however, the moral attitude, disposition, which is deter- 
mined by the reflection of the mind (e.g. Hdt., 7, 150; Soph., OT 600). It also means 
resolve and intention (e.g. Homer, //. 9, 104 f.; Hdt., 1, 27). 

(b) In Gk. philosophy and religion the concept is developed further in theory. 
Here it comes to mean reason or mind as the organ of thought, which comprehends 
the world and existence. Early Gk. philosophy describes the meaning of un- 
derstanding: it perceives, orders and controls everything (e.g. Anaxagoras, Fragment 

In Plato nous does not mean the whole realm of thought, but the highest of the 
three parts of the > soul. nous is here called the logistikon, the ruling principle of 
pure thought (Phaedr. 247c). This true and divine reason rules in man and in the un- 
iverse,' in the microcosm as well as in the macrocosm (Tim. 30a b, 46c ff.). Reason 
comprehends truth (Rep. 6, 490b). Reason and truth, begotten by Philomathes along 
with the on, being, lead to knowledge. In man’s reason lies his awareness of God. 


Aristotle set understanding above the powers of the soul. He distinguished a nous 
theoretikos, theoretical reason, from nous praktikos, practical reason (An. 3, 9, p. 
432b, 27 ff.; 3, 101, p. 433a, 14 ff.; Eth.Nic. 6, 2, p. 1139a, 17 ff.). This reason is im- 
mortal and divine. The nous is both the most important part of the human mind and 
the embodiment of the divine (Eth.Nic. 10, 7, p. 1177a, 14 f.). 

This linking of nous and the divine is also characteristic of Stoicism. According to 
Epictetus, reason is the essence of God (Dissertationes 2, 8. 1 f.). 

In the Corpus Hermeticum, nous is thought of in the most strictly abstract way, as 
the original divine principle (e.g. 1, 6; 1, 12; 5, 11). Man too has a share in this nous, 
even if not in its original fiery form. This nous is the eye of reason, through which 
alone man can comprehend God (5, 10a). The nous enters the soul and leads it to 
knowledge (10, 21). All in all, this is a typically gnostic, syncretistic doctrine of salva- 
tion, for which the Gk. concept of nous is pressed into service. 

2. (a) With nous, mind, there goes a whole group of words, derived from the 
same root, including the noun dianoia (Hdt. onwards), the act or faculty of thinking 
and reflection. Aristotle (Met. 5, 1, p. 1025b, 25) divides this into praktike, poietike 
and theoretike, practical, creative and reflective thinking. It is the special 
philosophical power of thought, theoretical understanding as opposed to sensory per- 
ceptions and feelings (Democritus, Fragment 11). dianoia also means way of think- 
ing, disposition, intention (e.g. Plato, Laws 10, 888a) or purpose, design (Hdt., 1, 90, 
3; 8, 97, 3). Like nous, dianoia can also be used of the sense and meaning of a word 
(e.g. Plato, Critias 113a). 

(b) ennoia (Eur. onwards) meant originally the act of thought (Pseudo-Plato, 
Definitions 414a), then the result: thought, realization, insight, disposition, even the 
disposition of the gods (e.g. Xen., Cyr. 1, 1, 1). In philosophy ennoia means idea, 
concept (e.g. concept of time, Plato, Timaeus 47a; the idea of the beautiful, Aristotle, 
Eth.Nic. 10, 10, p. 1179b, 15). ennoia is conceptual thought, without which things 
cannot be perceived (Diogenes Laertius, 7, 42). According to Stoic doctrine, these 
concepts are derived from experience and are reproduced from one’s understanding 
of the nature of things (e.g. Epictetus, Dissertationes 2, 17, 7). 

_(c) noema (Homer onwards) is that which is thought, a thought. Like ennoia, it 
can mean concept (Aristotle, An. 3, 6, p. 430a, 27 f.). It can, however, also mean 
plan (Plato, Politicus 260d). 

(d) The meaning of dianoema (Xen. onwards) is not much different: thought, no- 
tion, resolve, plan (e.g. Plato, Sym. 210d). Thus it can be contrasted with > work 
(ergon) (Isocrates, 3, 9). It can also mean ulterior motive (P.Lond. 5, 1724, 15). This 
term is also found in the sense of illusions and the confused thoughts of those sick 
with fever (Hippocrates, Epidemiai 1, 23). 

(e) Similarly anoia (Theognis onwards) means folly, want of understanding. Plato 
(Timaeus 86b) distinguishes two kinds of lack of understanding: that resulting from 
madness and that resulting from lack of teaching. 

3. Corresponding to these nouns is a group of verbs which give expression to the 
process of thinking, and to thought itself: 

(a) noeo (Homer onwards) originally meant to perceive with understanding in- 
cluding both sensory and mental impressions (Homer, //. 11, 599). In the philosophy 
of Parmenides, thought and being are made almost identical (Parmenides, Fragment 
3). A theme which is significant for Gk. thought is homoion homoio noeitai, “Like is 



known by like.” Deity is known to itself. The Roman poet, Manilius, expressed the 
same idea in this way: quis caelum possit nisi caeli munere nosse et reperire deum 
nisi qui pars ipse deorum est, ““Who would be able to know heaven except by the gift 
of heaven, and who would be able to find a god unless he be a part of the gods him- 
self?” (Astronomica 2, 115). 

(b) A strengthened form of noeo is katanoeo (Hdt. onwards), to direct one’s mind 
and interest towards something, to notice and perceive it (e.g. Xen., Cyr. 2, 2, 28). 
Thus katanoeo can mean to observe, test, comprehend, understand, in the latter 
sense being almost synonymous with syniemi, to understand. 

4. (a) In addition to noeo the verbal adj. noetos is attested from the time of Par- 
menides and means intelligible. The opposite is expressed by anoetos (from the pre- 
Socratics), unintelligible, unimaginable. Plato (Parmenides 132c) speaks of noemata 

. anoeta, unintelligible, unthinkable thoughts. anoetos also means senseless, 
foolish, indicating a lack of understanding and judgment (Plato, Grg. 464d). The 
plur. anoetoi is used as the contrary of phronountes, senseless and sensible respec- 
tively (Anaxippus, Fragment 4). The anoetoi are not far removed from the kakoi and 
poneroi, the bad. 

(b) dysnoetos is the equivalent of hard to understand (e.g. Aristotle, De Plantis 1, 
1 p. 816a, 3). This is how Lucian (Alexander 54) describes the oracular utterances. 
Along with this goes dysexegetos, hard to interpret (Diogenes Laertius, 9, 13). 

OT 1. In comparison with the central role played by the nous in the world of Gk. 
literature, it is surprising how little use is made of this group of words in the 
LXX. The most common of the terms is dianoia, which appears 75 times, whereas 
nous and noeo are each attested only about 35 times, and the other derivatives even 
less. This sparing use of the words in the LXX is connected with the fact that the 
Heb. has no term equivalent to the Gk. nous. leb or lebab, which is rendered in the 
LXX 6 times by nous and 38 times by dianoia, is otherwise nearly always translated 
kardia, — heart. Nevertheless, this variation in translation does indicate that in OT 
thought the heart is the seat of intellectual processes. But OT anthropology knows 
nothing of the Gk. division of the soul into three parts, so that human understanding 
does not become pushed into the foreground in such a one-sided and isolated way as 
is the case, at least to some extent, in the Gk. world. In the OT the understanding 
belongs together with the will, and aims less at theoretical contemplation than at 
right conduct. The intellectual sphere is thus anchored more firmly in the whole per- 
son, both body and soul, than it is in Gk. thought (cf. W. Eichrodt, Theology of the 
Old Testament, II, 1967, 147 ff.). The intellectual element is displayed more clearly 
in the use of the vb. noeo than it is with the noun nous, for it goes back to the Heb. 
bin, to understand, perceive. Insight and understanding also mean in the OT the 
process of judging and exploring the relation of things to one another. The difference 
is that this insight is not regarded as an independent achievement of man using his — 
critical faculty, but as a gift of Yahweh. The most important statement of the OT 
theory of knowledge is that all true knowledge comes from God (cf. L. Koehler, 
Hebrew Man, 1956, 115-48; Old Testament Theology, 1957, 99-126). 
In general, these words are seldom found in the earlier parts of the OT. They are 
more frequent in the Wisdom literature; but they come into their own in the Gk. 
writings of the LXX (especially Macc.). This fact indicates that the specifically Gk. 



concept of nous did not enter the OT tradition until the post-canonical, apocryphal 
era. The process reaches a kind of climax in Philo. 

2. (a) The fact that nous 6 times (out of a total of 31) stands in the LXX for Jeb 
and lebab, heart, inner being, suggests that the texts have undergone a certain 
Hellenizing process (Exod. 7:23; Isa. 10:7b, etc.); but it also shows that nous is to be 
understood in a sense more associated with the will. Other expressions pointing in the 
same direction are to keep in mind (2 Macc. 15:8), to give attention to something (1 
Esd. 9:41); and phrases like an understanding mind (4 Macc. 1:35; 2:16), a pure 
mind (Test. Ben. 8:3), an innocent mind (Wis. 4:12), or in Josephus, a healthy mind 
(Ant. 8, 23). But at the same time, the use of nous to translate Jeb also includes the 
element of deliberation, sometimes almost philosophical reflection, with the aim of 
making a practical decision (e.g. Isa. 10:7; 41:22). An unusual use of nous is to tran- 
slate rtiah, spirit (Isa. 40:13; cf. Jud. 8:14). But the use of nous for ‘ozen, ear, may be 
due to a scribal error — nous instead of ous, ear (Job 33:16; 12:11). 

(b) dianoia (c. 75 times) is also used in the LXX to translate heart. It can be used 
to express the idea of to oneself, in one’s heart, in one’s mind, and so comes to be 
used to express emotions and acts of will (Isa. 35:4; Exod. 35:22). It can also express 
the whole of one’s inner life (Gen. 8:21). Occasionally it renders the Heb. mah *Sabét, 
plots, plans (Dan. 11:25), and also bindh, understanding (Dan. 9:22). 

In the apocryphal writings dianoia means spirit, mind, consciousness, disposition, 
especially in a moral sense. God is the guide of the dianoia (Aristeas 238). The good, 
moral, pure mind can be beguiled (Test.Ben. 8:2; Test.Jud. 11:1). Philo is able to 
write of the dianoia in the same way as he does of the nous, that it is the divine ele- 
ment in man (Det. Pot. Ins. 29), the organ by which God is perceived (Virt. 57), and 
that which makes man immortal (Op. Mund. 135). 

(c) ennoia (13 times). is used to render various Heb. words, especially in Prov. 
(1:4; 2:11; 3:21; 4:1; 5:2; 8:12316:22; 18:15; 19:7;23:4, 19; 24:7; Wis. 2:14). All 
the Heb. equivalents mean understanding, wisdom, knowledge, and so ennoia retains 
its sense of reflection, insight, perception, wisdom, though not the theoretical mean- 
ing of concept. This latter sense is not found before Philo (Leg. All. 3, 234). Test. 
Naph. 2:5 uses it for thought; as does Philo (the ennoia of God, Det. Pot. Ins. 86). 

(d) noema (3 times) appears in the LXX in the sense of evil intention, plot; not as 
in classical Gk., concept (Sir. 21:11; Bar. 2:8; 3 Macc. 5:30). 

dianoema, on the other hand, usually in the LXX means wise thought, fhisight 
(Prov. 14:14; 15:24; Isa. 55:9; Ezek. 14:3 f.; Sir. 25:5; 32[35]:18). 

(e) anoia (13 times) means lack of understanding, folly, especially in a moral 
sense (Prov. 14:8; 22:15, for iwwelet; it is found again in 2 Macc. 4:6, 40; 14:5; 
15:33, where it always means wickedness, and in Josephus (Ant. 8, 318) coupled 
with baseness (cf. also Job 33:23; Ps. 22[21]:2; Eccl. 11:10; Wis. 15:18; 19:3; 3 
Macc. 3:16, 20). 

3. (a) noeo (35 times) renders, along with syniemi and ginosko, the various forms 
of the Heb. bin, to observe, notice, understand (e.g. Prov. 20:24; Jer. 2:10), or the 
Heb. sakal, understand, have insight (e.g. Prov. 1:3; Jer. 10:21). 

The typical organ of understanding in the OT is the > heart (Prov. 16:23; Isa. 
6:10). This implies that this understanding lies within the realm of moral decisions. In 
Isa. 47:7 (“you did not lay these things to heart’’) the LX X translates freely, and yet 
without changing the meaning, “you did not understand this in your heart.” In Philo 



noeo means to think, losing its association with sense perception (Leg. All. 2, 70; 
Abr. 44). 

(b) katanoeo (30 times) is used in the LXX in the sense of to notice, regard, for 
the Heb. ra’ah, to see (Isa. 5:12; Exod. 19:21); for nabat hiph., to look (e.g. Pss. 
10:14[9:35]; 22[21]:17; synonymous to blepo, to look, Dan. 7:21; so also in Philo, 
Vit. Mos. 1, 158). The LXX translates sapdh, to spy, watch, by Katanoeo (e.g. Ps. 
37[36]:32), and Josephus uses the vb. in the same way (Ant. 5, 5). Philo uses it in the 
sense of meditative reflection, in referring to the beauty of an idea (Ebr. 137). 

(c) anoétos (9 times) appears in the LXX for the Heb. ’‘wil (Prov. 17:28) and 
‘iwwelet (Prov. 15:21), foolish, without sense. Otherwise it is without Heb. equivalent 
(Deut. 32:31; Ps. 49[48]:12; Sir. 21:19; 42:8; 4 Macc. 5:8 f.; 8:17). It occurs 
alongside moros (Sir. 21:19; 42:8) in a moral and religious sense: senseless, foolish. 

4. (a) In Philo’s writings we find all the elements of the Gk. concept of nous. The 
mysterious element of thought and understanding comes in, however, for stronger 
emphasis here than in classical Gk. God is the reason behind all things, the perfect 
world-reason. Because reason is inspired by God, it leads to the knowledge of God 
(Deus Imm. 143; Spec.Leg. 1, 18; Migr.Abr. 192). Whereas the Greeks defined 
reason, and looked for its origin in human powers, thus placing their emphasis upon 
reasoned consideration of the world, Philo was more interested in the significance of 
reason as a means to gain knowledge of God. More important for him than any 
knowledge of God gained by reason is an ecstatic knowledge of God, conveyed by 
God’s Spirit. So long as ecstasy continues, reason must take second place (Rer. Div. 
Her. 265; Leg.All. 2, 31). 

(b) It can be established that in intertestamental Judaism the words of this group 
are used with a bias towards the moral side. A religious element may be detected 
more clearly than in Gentile writings. At the same time Gk. anthropology exercised 
an influence in translation and use of terms. nous generally means mind, moral 
nature (e.g. Test.Ben. 8:3; Test.Jud. 14:2 f.). 

(c) For the Qumran community understanding and insight belong only to God 
and his children of light. The dualistic tract 1QS 3:13-4:26 praises the mysteries of 
the insight and wisdom of God, which will bring to an end at the appointed time the 
existence of wickedness (1QS 4:18). Those who would join the community must first 
be tested for their insight (CD 13:11). The Hymns praise God, who has lent to his 
own the insight to recognize his wonders and mighty deeds (1QH 11:28; 12:13; 
13:13). In the writings of the sect we find the (gnostic?) version of the Aaronic bless- 
ing: “May he lighten your heart with life-giving wisdom and grant you eternal 
knowledge” (1QS 2:3). 

nT 1. If we consider first and foremost the frequency of the nous group of words in 

the NT, we find the same situation as in the LXX: namely, that the group does 
not have a central part to play in the NT as a whole. nous is found only 24 times, 
noeo and katanoeo 14 times each, and the other associated terms even less often. 
This statistical survey gives, however, a false impression. It is true that the concept of 
nous has only a peripheral place in the Gospels (with the partial exception later of 
Lk., who uses katanoeo 8 times) and in the later letters. On the other hand, we find 
that this Hellenistic terminology occurs relatively more frequently in Paul (21 of the 
24 occurrences of nous itself are in the so-called Pauline corpus). It was Paul who 


not only acted as the historical link between the early church and its Hellenistic en- 
vironment, but also thought out, in his dealings with the church at Corinth, the fun- 
damental theological relationship between faith and knowledge. Although he adopted 
concepts and ways of formulating problems from Hellenism, he rejected the Gk. at- 
tempts at solving them, and relegated reason to its proper and inalienable place, both 
limiting and freeing it by means of the Christian faith. 

All in all, it may be said that the NT gives to this group of words its own inter- 
pretation. The contrast between understanding and lack of understanding becomes 
clearer. The whole group of words is associated more firmly with the will, and the un- 
derstanding spoken of is an understanding of God and his will in salvation, an un- 
derstanding of the word in scripture and preaching. Understanding itself becomes a 
disposition, an attitude, and thus a standpoint of faith. 

2. (a) The noun nous, which is found in the Pauline corpus, including Eph., Col., 
and the Pastorals, has the meaning mind, faculty of judgment, insight (e.g. 2 Thess. 
2:12). But this understanding is a religious understanding, a religious faculty of judg- 
ment, and is set along side the > conscience (Tit. 1:15). nous is a term parallel to > 
faith, which in the Pastorals means the same thing as religion: the false teachers are 
corrupt in their religious discernment, and not to be trusted in matters of Christian 
religion (2 Tim. 3:8; also 1 Tim. 6:5). 

In Rom. 7:23 Paul writes, “I see in my members another law at war with the law 
of my nous”. Then in v. 25 he goes on, “So I serve the law of God with my nous |i.e. 
with my understanding], but with my flesh [i.e. as flesh] I serve the law of sin.” This 
nous is the same thing as the eso anthropos, the inner man, or the ego, the real self, 
which can distinguish between good and bad. The self agrees with the law, that it is 
good; the self wishes to fulfil the law. But against this law which the nous recog- 
nizes, the law of religious understanding, there fights the other law of > sin. nous is 
here the religious knowledge and insight which honours and recognizes the law of 

The understanding, namely, the faculty of religious discernment, is what is meant 
in Eph. 4:18 by dianoia. Here we read of the darkening of the understanding — 
parallel, incidentally, to the futility of the nous. On the positive side we read of the 
gift of understanding, the ability to recognize religious truth: by this gift from the 
hand of Christ, Christians are enabled to discern him who is true, namely God (1 Jn. 

(b) dianoia comes very near in meaning to nous, and means, ability to think, 
faculty of knowledge, understanding, the organ of noein; then, mind, and particularly 
disposition. NT usage is quite different from that of Gk. philosophy, but correspon- 
dingly near to that of the LXX. This is shown by citations of the OT in which 
dianoia stands in parallelism to kardia, heart (Heb. 8:10; 10:16; from Jer. 31:33 
LXX). The same combination is seen in Lk. 1:51, hyperephanoi dianoias kardias, 
“proud in the imagination [or way of thinking] of their hearts” (cf. NEB “arrogant of 
heart and mind”). In the sense of understanding or mind, dianoia is counted among 
the inward powers of man (Matt. 22:36 par. Mk. 12:30; Lk. 10:27; + Command, 
art. entole nT 1; > Hear, art. akouo NT 3). On the other hand, dianoia can in some 
contexts mean the power of the disposition or the will, and thus acquire a religious 
flavour. It is the spiritual consciousness, the disposition, the attitude of faith. This 
consciousness can be sincere (2 Pet. 3:1). It can also be hostile (Col. 1:21). It can be 



figuratively girded up, like the loins, i.e. when a person begins to think actively (1 Pet. 

(c) Similarly, ennoia is used in the NT neither in a gnostic nor in a philosophical 
sense, e.g. in the sense of concept. In the sense of thought, it is found alongside 
enthymesis, consideration, again in biblical fashion with the gen. tes kardias, of the 
heart (Heb. 4:12). The Christians are exhorted to arm themselves with the same 
thought, with which Christ was filled when he suffered (1 Pet. 4:1). 

(d) noema is found only in Paul (5 times in 2 Cor., once in Phil.). Even here we 
find a religious sense: the understanding of the divine will concerning salvation, the 
thinking concerned with this. This thinking can be corrupted, so that it no longer 
concerns itself simply with Christ (2 Cor. 11:3). It can be hardened and made inac- 
cessible to God’s word and the understanding of scripture (2 Cor. 3:14). It can 
become blind, so that it no longer perceives the illumination which comes from the 
gospel of the glory of Christ, and leads only to unbelief (2 Cor. 4:4). The — apostle, 
in the authority of his position and his commission, makes it his business to take 
every thought captive, so that it will submit, not to the apostle, but to Christ (2 Cor. 
10:5). noema is thus the general faculty of judgment, which can take decisions and 
pronounce verdicts right or wrong, depending on the influences to which it is ex- 
posed. In 2 Cor. 2:11 the plur. refers to the designs of Satan. At the climax of Phil. 
Paul urges his readers to continual rejoicing, forbearance and freedom from anxiety 
by committing everything to God in prayer. He then adds: “And the peace of God, 
which passes all understanding, will keep your hearts and your minds in Christ 
Jesus” (Phil. 4:7). a 

(e) dianoema appears only in Lk. 11:17, where it refers to hostile thoughts. The 
par. in Matt. 12:25 uses enthymeseis, thoughts, considerations, and refers to the > 
Pharisees (cf. 11:24). 

(f) anoia is lack of understanding, non-recognition, the absence of nous and 
dianoia. Those without understanding have no comprehension of Jesus’ action 
towards a sick man on the > Sabbath (Lk. 6:11). They are without understanding of 
the saving work of God in Christ. The folly of false teachers will come to light (2 
Tim. 3:9). 

3. (a) noeo means to perceive, recognize in a religious sense, with especial 
reference to God, his acts and his will. The juxtaposition of noeo and kardia, heart, 
in the quotation from Isa. 6:9—10, shows that noeo is regarded as an activity of the 
heart, a spiritual recognition (Jn. 12:40). The invisible is perceived, but not in a 
mystic vision: rather the visible expression of the invisible is thought through, in a 
kind of process of reflexion leading from the creation to the Creator. ‘Ever since the 
creation of the world his invisible nature [ta ... aorata autou], namely, his eternal 
power and deity, has been clearly perceived [nooumena kathoratai] in the things that 
have been made. So they are without excuse” (Rom. 1:20; God, art. theos NT 4(b)). 
The invisible is seen as something recognized. Knowledge of the infinite God is 
reached through the finite order. Similarly, Wis. 13:4 calls on men to reflect on the 
beauty and power of nature: “But if men were amazed at their power and working, 
let them perceive from them how more powerful,is he who formed them.” Ultimately 
this recognition is dependent upon — faith. That the world was created by the word 
of God, only faith can perceive (Heb. 11:3). 

The parenthetical expression, “let the reader understand”, Matt. 24:15, calling the 
128 : 


reader of the synoptic apocalypse to understand the text aright, uses noeo in the 
sense of an understanding of the divine plan of salvation. The church has the spiritual 
understanding (synesis) of the divine, secret plan, which the apostle proclaims in his 
writings (Eph. 3:4). 

(b) The use of katanoeo, to see and perceive, inspect, follows a similar pattern 
(Lk. 6:41 par. Matt. 7:3). The speck in the brother’s eye is seen, but the log in one’s 
own eye has to be noticed and observed. Lk. 20:23 shows that katanoein includes 
what goes on behind the scenes. In the same way, Heb. 3:1 means that it is not the 
outward figure of Jesus that we should look to, but what he really is, as the emissary 
of God, as the real High Priest, and as the proper object of Christian faith. Christians 
are exhorted to pay attention to one another, i.e. to focus their attention on their 
standing as Christians, working itself out in love, good works and mutual fellowship 
(Heb. 10:24). 

" (c) The anoétos is the man who is lacking in understanding, knowledge, instruc- 
tion, spiritual insight, the foolish man (Rom. 1:14), the opposite to the sophos, wise. 
The Galatians, who do not understand the freedom which their salvation has given 
them, are anoetoi, foolish (Gal. 3:1, 3), as are the disciples who do not understand 
God’s plan of salvation, embracing as it does the death of Jesus. Their lack of un- 
derstanding is in connection with the OT and its promises (Lk. 24:25). Foolishness 
here consists in deficient spiritual understanding of the good will of God. 

(d) dysnoetos, hard to understand, occurs only once in the NT (2 Pet. 3:16), 
where it refers to difficult passages in the letters of Paul. 

4. (a) The understanding of the nous has particular reference to the OT scrip- 
tures. The risen Christ opened the minds of the disciples that they might understand 
the scriptures (Lk. 24:45). The man with understanding is the one who knows the 
real meaning of the scriptures and the ways in which God manifests himself there; in 
other words, the one who knows the => secrets of the divine plan (Rev. 13:18; 17:9). 
Here nous and sophia, understanding and > wisdom, are interchangeable terms. It is 
the divine wisdom which has been given to the spiritual. 

(b) nous theou is God’s plan of salvation itself, which it is so important to know. 
Rom. 11:34 speaks of the nous of God, of his plan of salvation, the divine intention: 
“‘Who has known the mind of the Lord? ” (cf. Isa. 40:13 f.). Again, in 1 Cor. 2:16 we 
read of the nous of the Lord, of his intention to save, his thoughts and plans, also 
quoting Isa. 40:13 (— Council, art. symbouleuo). After the quotation Paul continues: 
noun Christou echomen, “we have the mind of Christ”. This is in keeping with the 
thought in 1 Cor. 2:12, that Christians have received the Spirit from God, in order 
that they may know what God has given them. In this context we should also con- 
sider Paul’s remarks about speaking in tongues, which are reminiscent of Philo. The 
one who speaks in tongues is filled with the Spirit. The Spirit prays but the mind “‘is 
unfruitful” (1 Cor. 14:14). In the same passage Paul contrasts speaking with the 
mind and speaking in tongues (14:19). It must not be overlooked that speaking with 
the mind is also the gift and work of the Spirit. Even where the Spirit and the mind 
are separated (14:14), it is only a matter of two different modes of operation of the 
Spirit. In v. 14 pneuma is used in a narrower sense, of > ecstasy brought on by the 
Spirit, which is contrasted with the mind, in which the Spirit is also at work. What is 
described in v. 24, the conviction of the outsider when he comes into the Christian 
assembly, is a conscious experience, the result of the comprehensible prophetic 



charisma. On the intercession of the Spirit and tongues — Prayer, art. entynchano. 
(c) nous in the sense of right understanding leads to a right attitude of mind. The 
heathen have a foolish attitude of mind because they lack right knowledge (Eph. 
4:17). Christians, on the other hand, must be renewed in the spirit of their mind (Eph. 
4:23). The Spirit upholds and fills the mind of the Christian. The hortatory part of 
the epistle to the Romans begins with the command to be transformed by the renew- 
ing of the mind (Rom. 12:2). Everyone is to be convinced in his decisions and his 
knowledge (Rom. 14:5). Paul appeals to the Corinthians, beset by divisions, to con- 
tinue in one mind and opinion (1 Cor. 1:10). G. Harder 

[owveos avvecic (synesis), faculty of comprehension, under- 
standing, insight; ovvinui (syniemi), perceive, comprehend, 
understand; avvetoc (synetos), quick at apprehending, understanding, intelligent; 
dovvetoc (asynetos), senseless, foolish. 

CL This group of words is common in classical Gk. literature, the vb. and noun being 

attested since Homer, the adj. synetos and its opposite asynetos since Theognis 
and Hdt. The vb. syniemi originally meant to bring together (Homer, J/. 1, 8); this 
simple meaning is not found in the NT. Figuratively, syniemi means to perceive, take 
notice of, understand, see into, comprehend. The word thus signifies, first, perception, 
then, taking note of, and finally, grasping, in the sense of understanding — though the 
latter meaning does not occur before Heraclitus. 

The noun synesis means, first, a joining (of rivers, Homer Od. 10, 515); then, in a 
transferred sense, the faculty of apprehension, understanding, judgment, insight, 
comprehension. The term is distinguished from other related terms in Aristotle, Eth. 
Nic. 6, 11; but neither the vb. nor the noun acquired any great philosophical impor- 

~ tance. 

The adj. synetos means quick at apprehending, understanding, clever; passively, 
intelligible; and the opposite is asynetos, stupid or unintelligible. 

oT In the LXX the words of this group occur frequently, the noun and the vb. being 

found about 100 times each, the.adj. 53 times, though the negative adj. is much 
rarer (11 times). As one might expect, they are found most frequently in the Wisdom 
literature. The most important Heb. equivalents are bin, to observe, notice, under- 
stand, and its derivatives. 

It is a characteristic of the meaning of this group of words that they are used 
mostly in connexion with sayings about > Wisdom. synesis, understanding, insight 
(Gk. translation of Heb. binah or t*biinah in the same sense), and sophia, wisdom (for 
Heb. hokmdGh in the same sense), are used together (e.g. Isa. 11:2; 29:14; Job 12:13; 
Sir. 1:19 f.; and especially in the programmatic texts Prov. 1:7 par. Ps. 111/110]:10; 
Prov. 2:1 ff.; 9:10). Other words used synonymously or in parallelism complete the 
picture: in Isa. 43:10 we find “know” and “believe” next to “understand”. The object 
of this knowledge is the fact that God is God (e.g. Jer. 9:24; note the contrast with 
human wisdom in v. 23, cf. also the LXX text of 1 Sam. 2:10). “Fear of the LorbD”, 
“justice and righteousness”, “good and evil” are named as the objects of insight 
(Prov. 2:5, 9; 9:10; 1 Ki. 3:9, 11). From this it may be concluded that in later wis- 



dom teaching insight is not understood as a faculty open to every man. This was how 
the older proverbial wisdom thought of wisdom and understanding (G. von Rad, 
Wisdom in Israel, 1972, 53-73). But when they became linked closely to the objects 
of knowledge just mentioned, the terms became more narrowly defined. Since the 
knowledge of God is always associated with God’s revelatory activity, insight can ul- 
timately be understood only as a gift of God which he imparts in response to man’s 
request (1 Ki. 3:9; Dan. 2:21; Ps. 119[118]:34, 73, 125), but can also withdraw 
because of men’s disobedience (Isa. 29:14). Under the influence of OT ideas, the 
definition of the term can change in the world of Hel. Judaism: e.g. asynetos can » 
mean a lack of apprehension but also of moral insight (Sir. 15:7; Josephus, War 6, 

NT In the NT these words are found less frequently than in the LXX. The vb. occurs 

only in the Synoptic Gospels and Acts, in quotations from the LXX at Rom. 
3:11 and 15:21, and otherwise 2 Cor. 10:12 and Eph. 5:17; the noun only 7 times 
altogether (once in a quotation); and the adj. and its opposite only very occasionally 
in the Synoptic Gospels, and only in quotations in Paul. The words are not present in 
John’s Gospel or the Johannine Epistles (though the ideas are present in Jn. 
12:37-41). The OT idea that insight is a gift of God and is linked with his revelation 
reappears in the NT usage. This is clear from the fact that the terms we are discuss- 
ing appear in important passages in quotations from the OT, or in loose connection 
with such quotations (Isa. 6:9 f. in Matt. 13:13 par. Mk. 4:12; Lk. 9:10; cf. Matt. 
13:15; Mk. 8:17 f., 21; Acts 28:26 f.; Deut. 6:5 in Mk. 12:33; Ps. 14:2 in Rom. 
3:11; Deut. 32:21 in Rom. 10:19; Isa. 52:15 in Rom. 15:21; Isa. 29:14 in 1 Cor. 
1:19), | 

1. In the Synoptic Gospels the most important passages are those which are con- 
cerned with the theme of the so-called “messianic secret” (— Secret). 

(a) Mark records the disciples’ lack of understanding regarding the words and ac- 
tions of Jesus (6:52; 7:18; 8:17, 21; in 8:18 with direct reference to Isa. 6:9 f. or Jer. 
5:21; and the same idea expressed with other vbs. in Mk. 4:40 f.; 9:10, 32). This 
gives expression to the thought that the biographical nearness of the disciples to 
Jesus is not alone sufficient to guarantee understanding. Jesus’ work is understood in 
retrospect in the light of Easter. It is the > faith which the gospel stimulates and 
which God gives that leads the church into insight. 

The so-called “parable theory” of Mk. 4:10—12 serves to press home the same 
point. Here the conflict between Jesus’ teaching by parables, with its aim of illumina- 
tion and understanding, and Mk’s concept of the secret messiahship of Jesus, is 
solved by the assertion that the works of Jesus become revelation to those who 
believe. Therefore they are given the secret of the kingdom of God. To “those who 
are without” everything is said in parables. Because they do not understand these, 
they are unable to turn and be saved ( > Parable, art. parabole NT7). Here again Isa. 
6:9 f. is cited (v. 12). 

(b) A comparison of the Matthean parallels with the passages in Mk. indicates 
that Matt. adopts a somewhat different emphasis. This is true not only of the so- 
called “parable theory” but also of the disciples’ lack of understanding. 

The failure of the disciples to understand the parables is not for Matt. paramount. 



At the end of the parabolic discourse reports Jesus asks the disciples, ““Have you un- 
derstood all this? *” Matt. reports the answer “Yes” (Matt. 13:51). The statement of 
Mk. 6:52, which attributes their lack of insight to hardness of heart, is passed over in 
the Matthean version and replaced by an exclamation of worship, praising Jesus as 
the Son of God (Matt. 14:33). The discussion of > leaven (Mk. 8:14—21, par. Matt. 
16:5—12), which ends in Mk. with the accusing question, “Do you not yet un- 
derstand? ”, leads in Matt. to the final understanding of the disciples. H. Conzelmann 
sees a “psychologising trend” in Matt. (TDNT VII 895) which displays a greater in- 
terest in the disciples’ understanding than Mk. Mk. presents the material as a 
problem; Matt. presents the problem and at the same time shows how the disciples 
came to understand. But he does not minimize the fact that understanding is a divine 
gift (cf. Matt. 16:16 ff.; 17:5 ff.). 

(c) In Luke many of the passages under discussion are missing, or have been 
greatly shortened (e.g. the parable theory in Lk. 8:9 f.). In Lk. 18:34 the disciples’ 
lack of understanding is emphasized particularly in regard to the passion prediction 
of Jesus. In Lk. 2:47 the insight of Jesus at twelve years of age is the subject of 
amazement, and there is no doubt that insight is here regarded as a gift of God — just 
as in Lk. 2:50 his parents’ failure to understand must be seen as the exact opposite. 
On the other hand, it is the risen Christ who enables the downcast disciples on the 
Emmaus road to understand the scriptures and to grasp the fact that his sufferings 
were foreordained by God (Lk. 24:45). 

Finally, in Acts 28:26 f., Isa. 6:9 f. is cited as the explanation for the unwillingness 
and inability of the Jews in Rome to understand (cf. Jn. 12:40, where noeo is used in- 
stead of syniemi). Along with the LXX, the writer of Acts has changed the im- 
perative “harden” of the prophetic word into the indicative “hardened”, simply 
describing the refusal of the people. It is thus indicated that, although insight is a gift 
of God, lack of insight must be regarded as culpable ( - Hard; — Blind). 

2. In Paul the use of these words is again affected by OT concepts, especially 
since in the majority of cases it is in quotations from the OT or allusions to OT 
phrases (Rom. 3:11 = Ps. 14:2; Rom. 10:19 = Deut. 32:21; Rom. 15:21 = Isa. 
52:15; 1 Cor. 1:19 = Isa. 29:14). Whether lack of insight is being condemned (Rom. 
3:11), or God’s wrath pronounced over the arrogance of those who believe them- 
selves to be wise (1 Cor. 1:19), or whether the subject is the universality of the 
message of salvation (Rom. 10:19; 15:21), insight is always seen as a gift of God and 
lack of insight as not merely a chance lack of knowledge. The latter is a sign that a 
man in his deepest being rejects God (“their senseless minds were darkened”, Rom. 
1:21). Thus in the Pauline passages the context emphasizes more strongly than in the 
Synoptic Gospels that lack of insight must be regarded as culpable behaviour. 
asynetos, having no insight, “foolish” (RSV), appears among the list of evils in Rom. 
1:31. Similarly the connexion between understanding and knowledge is more obvious 
than in the Synoptic Gospels (e.g. 1 Cor. 1:19; Rom. 1:21 f.). 

3. In the later Pauline literature we find not only the familiar ideas (insight as a 
gift, 2 Tim. 2:7), but also a new emphasis arising because of the connexion of these 
words with the concept of mystery. Fullness of understanding is given in the revela- 
tion of the — secret of God in Christ, in whom all the treasures of > wisdom and > 
knowledge lie hidden (Col. 2:2 f.). We may compare Eph. 3:4, where the content of 
the mystery of Christ is, in keeping with the wider context of the thought in Eph., 



associated with the church. In these epistles the nearness of this group of words to 
the concept of wisdom is again obvious (Col. 1:9; 2:2; Eph. 5:17; cf. v. 15). 

: J. Goetzmann 
~ Conscience, — Faith, > Knowledge, > Man, — Mind, > Secret, > Think, > Truth, 
— Wisdom 

(a). G. Barth, ““Matthew’s Understanding of the Law’, in G. Bornkamm, G. Barth and H. J. Held, 
Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew, 1963, 58-164; K. Barth, Anselm: Fides Quaerens Intellec- 
tum; Anselm's Proof of the Existence of God in the Context of his Theological Scheme, 1960; J. Behm 
and E. Wiirthwein, noeo etc., TDNT IV 948-1022; B. Blanshard, Reason and Analysis, 1962; and 
Reason and Belief, Based on Gifford Lectures at St Andrews and Noble Lectures at Harvard, 1974; G. 
Bornkamm, “Faith and Reason in Paul’s Epistles”, NTS 4, 1957-58, 93-100; and “The Revelation of 
God’s Wrath (Romans 1-3)”, in Early Christian Experience, 1969, 47—70; R. Bultmann, Theology of 
the New Testament, I, 1952, 211-20; and “Romans 7 and the Anthropology of Paul’, in Existence and 
Faith, (1961) 1964, 173-85; H. Conzelmann, syniemi etc., TDNT VII 888-96; and An Outline 
Theology of the New Testament, 1969, 180 f.; A. C. Ewing, Reason and Intuition, 1942; W. Eichrodt, 
Theology of the Old Testament, II, 1967, 118—50; N. S. F. Ferré, Reason in Religion, 1963; S. Freud, 
The Future of an Illusion, 1928; K. von Fritz, ““Noos and noein in the Homeric Poems”, Classical 
Philology 38, 1943, 79 ff.; and “Nous, noein and their Derivatives in Pre-Socratic Philosophy (excluding 
Anaxagoras), Part I, From the Beginning to Parmenides”, Classical Philology 40, 1945, 223 ff.; H.-G. 
Gadamer, “The Power of Reason”, Man and World 3, 1970, 5-15; W. K. C. Guthrie, A History of 
Greek Philosophy, | The Earlier Presocratics and the Pythagoreans, 1962; II The Presocratic Tradition 
from Parmenides to Democritus, 1965; II] The Fifth-Century Enlightenment, 1969 (see indexes under 
nous); R. Jewett, Paul’s Anthropological Terms: A Study of their Use in Conflict Settings, Arbeiten zur 
Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Christentums 10, 1971, 358-90; D. W. Kemmler, Faith and 
Human Reason: A Study of Paul’s Method of Preaching as Illustrated by 1-2 Thessalonians and Acts 
17, 2-4, Supplements to NovT 40, 1975; L. Koehler, Hebrew Man, 1956, 115-48; and Old Testament 
Theology, 1957, 99-126; J. L. Martyn, “Epistemology at the Turn of the Ages: 2 Cor. 5:16”, in W. R. 
Farmer, C. F. D. Moule and R. R. Niebuhr, eds., Christian History and Interpretation. Studies Presen- 
ted to John Knox, 1967, 269-87; A. E. Murphy, The Uses of Reason, 1943; E. Nagel, Sovereign 
Reason, 1954; W. Pannenberg, “Faith and Reason”, in Basic Questions in Theology, Il, 1971, 46—64; 
G. von Rad, Wisdom in Israel, 1972; N. H. G. Robinson, “Reason and Religion”, SJT 23, 1970, 
338—48; B. Russell, Skeptical Essays, 1928; G. Santayana, The Life of Reason, 1954; B. Snell, The 
Discovery of the Mind: The Greek Origins of European Thought, 1953 (the Ger. translation Die 
Entdeckung des Geistes, 1955° contains additional material); W. H. Walsh, Reason and Experience, 
1947; G. J. Warnock, “Reason”, in P. Edwards, ed., The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, VII, 1967, 83 ff.; 
A. N. Whitehead, The Function of Reason, 1929; R. N. Whybray, The Intellectual Tradition in the 
Old Testament, BZAW 135, 1974; H. W. Wolff, Anthropology of the Old Testament, 1974, 46—S5. 
(b). P. Bonnard, “L’Intelligence chez Saint Paul”, in L’Evangile Hier et Aujourd’hui, Festschrift F. J. 
Leenhardt, 1968, 13 ff.; A. Fridrichsen, “Zur Auslegung von Romer 1.19 f.”, ZNW 17, 1916, 159 ff.; 
H.-J. Iwand, Glauben und Wissen, Nachgelassene Werke, I, ed. H. Gollwitzer, 1962, 17 ff.; H. J. 
Kramer, Der Ursprung der Geistesmetaphysik, 1964; W. G. Kimmel, Romer 7 und die Bekehrung des 
Paulus, Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 17, 1929; J. Kurzinger, “Der Schlussel zum 
Verstandnis von Romer 7”, BZ Neue Folge 7, 1963, 270-74; B. Lohse, “Vernunft”, EKL III 1649 ff.; 
H. Ludemann, Die Anthropologie des Apostels Paulus und ihre Stellung innerhalb seiner Heilslehre. 
Nach den vier Hauptbriefen, 1873; O. Moe, “Vernunft and Geist im Neuen Testament”, ZSTh 11, 
1934, 351 ff.; K. Oehler, “Vernunft und Verstand”, RGG? VI 1364 ff.; and Die Lehre vom noetischen 
und dianoetischen Denken bei Platon und Aristoteles, 1962; H. Ott, “Glaube und Vernunft”, TLZ 92, 
1967, 401 ff.; O. Sander, ““Leib-Seele Dualismus im Alten Testament?”, ZAW 77, 1965, 329 ff.; R. 
Schottlaender, “Nous als Terminus”, Hermes 64, 1929, 239 ff.; G. Schrenk, “Geist und Enthusiasmus”, 
in Wort und Geist. Festschrift K. Heim, 1934, 75 ff. (reprinted in Studien zu Paulus, AThANT 26, 
1954, 107 ff.); T. Simon, Die Psychologie des Apostels Paulus, 1897; B. Snell, “Wie die Griechen 
lernten, was geistige Tatigkeit ist”, Journal of Hellenic Studies 93, 1973, 172-84; J. Stenzel, “Zur 
Entwicklung des Geistesbegriffes in der griechischen Philosophie’, Antike 1, 1925, 244 ff.; P. 
Stuhlmacher, “Glauben und Verstehen bei Paulus”, EvTh 26, 1966, 337 ff.; G. Teichmuller, Neue Stu- 
dien zur Geschichte der Begriffe, I-III (1876-79) 1965 (see index under nous); E. Weber, “Die 



Beziehungen von Romer 1-3 zur Missionspraxis des Paulus”, BFChTh, 9, 1905, 86 ff.; H. H. Wendt, 
Die Begriffe Fleisch und Geist im biblischen Sprachgebrauch, 1878. 

Recompense, Reward, Gain, Wages 

The following article brings together several Gk. words. The group associated with 
apodidomi conveys the idea of recompense. The word misthos is taken from com- 
mercial life and originally denoted the payment made to a worker, but since 
Hellenistic times it was also used in religious contexts. opsonion, on the other hand, is 
a term drawn from military circles, meaning the soldier’s rations, then payment for 
military service, and finally the salary of a government official. kerdos is the word 
with the widest meaning. It suggests the consequences of payment: profit, advantage, 
gain. Since advantage and disadvantage and profit and loss belong together as op- 
posites, zemia (loss) is discussed together with kerdos. 

Tr admodltowul (apodidomi), give away, give up, give back, sell, 
| OOO | give back what is due, recompense; dvtamo0didmui 
(antapodidomi), give back, repay, return, requite, pay back in his own coin; 

dvtanddocig (antapodosis), repaying, reward, recompense; dyvtazddoua 
(antapodoma), repayment, requital, recompense. 

CL apodidomi, attested in general Gk. usage from the time of Homer, means 

primarily to give up, render (Diod. Sic. 14, 84, 2), or, to give back (Xen., Hell. 2, 
2, 9). In the mid. it means accordingly to sell. Hence it acquired the specific meaning 
of giving something up which one must give up because of some kind of obligation 
(thus to pay out a wage, Xen., Anab. 1, 2, 12; to pay one’s vow, Xen., Mem. 2, 2, 
10). This gives the word the technical sense to render, requite, in both good and bad 
senses (Dion. Hal., 6, 73). The compound form antapodidomi and its derivatives ex- 
press this meaning of the word still more definitely in the Hellenistic period. In the ar- 
ticle which follows we shall concentrate on the idea of recompense, since it is here 
that the term has relevance theologically. 

oT 1. In the OT act and consequence are firmly linked like cause and effect. The 
reward arises out of the action done, like the harvest from the act of sowing (e.g. 
Job 8:7; Prov. 22:8; cf. Gal. 6:7 ff.). The concept of a personal judge and recompen- 
ser is present here in so far as God is the one who maintains this order and allows the 
action to return upon the doer (Heb. hesib, hiph. of Heb. Sb, return, i.e. cause to 
return, requite, 1 Sam. 26:23 f; 2 Sam. 16:8). As such, he avenges wrongdoing 
(nagam, Jer. 15:15). Man’s responsibility before God is expressed clearly by the root 
pagqad, to visit (— Bishop, art. episkopos OT): God keeps a watch over his servants, 
recognizing right actions and inflicting punishment upon the wicked (Hos. 1:4; 4:9, 
14; 8:13; 9:7; Amos 3:14). The most important term for recompense is, however, 
Salem in the piel, which means to restore, repay, pay damages (cf. Exod. 22). In legal, 
judicial usage it comes to mean to requite, because the judge so to speak repays a 
claim which a person has earned by his action either on the good side (reward) or on 
the bad (punishment). This is especially clear in Prov. 19:17. Reward and > punish- 
ment correspond. to the action of the one being judged (cf. Jdg. 1:7; 2 Sam. 3:39; Ps. 
62:12; Jer. 25:14; 50:29). 
2. The idea of recompense is found first and foremost as a concept characteristic 
of the theology of the OT, in the negative sense of God’s punishment for the dis- 



obedience of Israel. God punishes the people as a whole. Ezekiel was the first to 
declare that no man will die on account of another’s sin (Ezek. 18). God requites his 
people for their unfaithfulness. This is not despite his — election of them; rather they 
are responsible to him because they have been “known” by God (Amos 3:2). It is 
their faithlessness to the > covenant between God and his people which is the cause 
of their punishment. Deut. is the first book to speak of a “reward” for the faithful 
(Deut. 28). The Deuteronomic history (Jdg.-2 Ki.) finds in the recompense of God 
the key to understanding the history of Israel. This is set out programmatically in 
Jdg. 2:6 ff. 

3. In the intertestamental period the idea of recompense came to be related ex- 
clusively to the — law. The latter is no longer anchored in the historic event of the old 
covenant; it is no longer a set of instructions on how to remain within the grace of the 
covenant. It becomes an absolute norm, according to which each person’s actions 
are assessed and by means of which one hopes to attain to salvation (which is seen as 
altogether other-worldly and in the future). Recompense is now no longer simply the 
punishment of faithlessness and apostasy; it also determines who has succeeded in 
reaching the height of fellowship with God by means of his good > works. The OT 
by contrast regarded — fellowship with God as a free gift, which had come to the 
people by grace in the deliverance from Egypt and the bestowal of the land of Ca- 
naan. Now judgment, recompense, and salvation or condemnation are transferred 
completely into the future. The present state of salvation, which for the OT consisted 
in living in the promised land, became lost in the hardships of the people from the 
time of the Babylonian captivity. This legalistic understanding of recompense leads 
the LXX to translate the Heb. equivalents into the legal terms antapodidomi, to re- 
quite, and antapodoma, requital. 

NT 1. In the NT apodidomi occurs 43 times, predominantly in Matt. (18 times), Lk. 

(12 times) and Paul (8 times). As with the Hellenistic writers, the whole wide 
range of the word is represented: to hand over (Matt. 27:58); to give back (Lk. 4:20); 
to sell (Acts 5:8, mid.); to pay what has been agreed or to fulfil an agreed obligation 
(Matt. 20:8); to pay a debt (Matt. 18:23 ff.); to perform what one has sworn to do 
(Matt. 5:33); and then especially, to forgive. The vb. is not found in Jn. In the sense 
of to recompense, it occurs chiefly in Matt. and Paul, but also in Rev.; in the sense of 
to restore, in Lk. 

antapodidomi (7 times; of which 4 are in Paul, 2 in Lk.) fits into the same pattern. 
It emphasizes the character of what is given in return. antapodoma and antapodosis 
are used in reference to the divine recompense (Lk: 14:12; Rom. 11:9) at the final 
judgment (Col. 3:24). 

2. Theologically apodidomi has its home in the NT expectation of > judgment 
and — punishment. Jesus proclaimed the final judgment as being at hand and sum- 
moned men to repentance. The NT concept of recompense can best be illustrated 
from a passage like Mk. 8:38: “For whoever is ashamed of me and my words in this 
adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of man also be ashamed, when 
he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels” (par. Lk. 9:26). As in the 
OT, it is a person’s attitude to the Lord (in the NT Jesus Christ), our faithfulness 
towards him, that determines our fate on the last day. This is the meaning of the 
parable of the last judgment in Matt. 25:31—46. Here the ultimate criterion 1s the 



behaviour of men towards Christ, even though this attitude is expressed also in their 
relationships with their neighbours. In the same way John can identify the — work 
which will be approved at the judgment with faith (Jn. 6:29), and conversely describe 
unbelief simply as sin (Jn. 16:9; cf. 12:48). Recompense, then, is not a matter of the 
reckoning up and weighing against each other of individual works; the decisive factor 
is whether we are true to Jesus and his word, whether we confess him or reject him. 
This is corroborated by Heb. 10:26—30, with its insistent warning against apostasy 
and leaving the new covenant, for fear of recompense. “For we know him who said, 
“Vengeance is mine, I will repay [emoi ekdikesis, ego antapodoso|.’ And again, ‘The 
Lord will judge his people’ ” (quoting Deut. 32:35 f.). The NT, like the OT, thinks in 
terms of a covenant already established, fellowship already firmly fixed, and expects 
recompense to operate against those who withdraw from Jesus Christ. 

3. This gives us the background of the NT use of apodidomi. Man is responsible 
to his heavenly Judge, whether he is a Christian or an unbeliever (Rom. 2:6; cf. 1 
Cor. 3:13 ff.; 2 Cor. 5:10). apodidomi does not imply an evaluation of human works 
on the basis of some inherent moral worth in the works themselves, even where 
reference is made to an apodidomi according to works (Matt. 16:27; Rom. 2:6; 2 
Tim. 4:14; Rev. 22:12). The works are rather the expression either of opposition to 
Christ, or of agreement and faith; in them is manifested either allegiance to the new 
covenant, which causes the Christian to be obedient to his Lord and to be his 
disciple, or the unbeliever’s state of rejection. 

A passage which is particularly instructive in this context is Rev. 20:11—15 on the 
final judgment. All men are judged according to their works, which are recorded in 
books which have been opened (v. 12). When it comes, however, to the book of life 
(vv. 12, 15), the pattern of recompense is no longer carried through consistently. The 
believers are withdrawn from the judgment. Through — election they have a > 
righteousness which leads to life. For them the recompense consists of the “inheri- 
tance” which God gives (cf. Col. 3:24). Since recompense comes with the final judg- 
ment, Christians are forbidden to wreak their own vengeance in the present age 
(Rom. 12:17; 1 Thess. 5:15; 1 Pet. 3:9). On the question of human merit > misthos 
below. P. C. Bottger 

— KEépoos (kerdos), gain; kepdaive (kerdaino), to gain; Cnuia 
(zemia), damage, disadvantage, forfeit, loss; Cyudoual 
(zemioomai), suffer damage, loss, forfeit. | 

cL kerdos, gain, profit, advantage; more rarely used in Gk. for clever advice, cunning 
attacks; and in the plur. deceit, a frequent meaning from Homer onwards. The 
vb. kerdaino means to make to profit or gain an advantage, gain something or 
somebody for something; it can also mean to spare or avoid (e.g. in Acts 27:21), 
since avoiding loss brings a gain. | 
The opposite of kerdos is zemia, disadvantage, loss, and (occasionally) punish- 
ment. The opposite of kerdaino is accordingly zemioomai, suffer loss, attested only 
after Homer. These contrasting pairs are brought together in Matt. 16:26 and Phil. 
eae | 

oT Although neither kerdos nor kerdaino (which can be traced back to Hesiod) is 


used in the LXX, the OT and LXX both use careful periphrases for profit, making 
the following distinctions. 

1. Gains which are unjustly acquired or striven for are termed Heb. besa‘, unjust 
gain, robbery, booty, profit (Gen. 37:26; Exod. 18:21; Jdg. 5:19; Ps. 119:36; Isa. 
33:15; 56:11; 57:17; Jer. 22:17; 51:13; Ezek. 22:13; 33:31). The corresponding vb. 
basa‘ means to cut to pieces, plunder, make a profit (cf. Ps. 10:3; Prov. 1:19; Jer. 
6:13; 8:10). The LXX, keeping the general sense, translates the idea by anomia, 
lawlessness, adikia, unrighteousness, anoma, lawless things (cf. Prov. 1:19; 28:16; 
Isa. 33:15; Jer. 6:13 “everybody is out for gain’’). 

2. Gain as a yitron, advantage or profit = LXX perisseia, surplus, abundance ( > 
Fullness, art. perisseuo). The Preacher is the only one to enquire about profit in life 
and to deny it critically (Eccl. 2:11); there is nothing of any profit under the sun (cf. 
Eccl. 1:3; 3:9; 5:15 with 2:13; 3:19; 5:8, 15; 6:8; 7:11 f. [12 f.]; 10:10 f.). 

3. To gain, as a translation of ya‘al (hiph.), means to have an advantage or bring a 
profit: “What advantage have I?” (Job 35:3; cf. 21:15). The LXX translates gain, 
advantage by opheleia. 

NT In the NT kerdos is found only 3 times, all in Paul. kerdaino occurs 16 times, of 
which the following are particularly important theologically: Matt. 16: 26 par. 
Mk. 8:36, Lk. 9:25; Matt. 25:16 ff.; Phil. 3:8; 1 Cor. 9:19 ff. . 

1. The NT is critically opposed to the normal economic orientation of profit in so 
far as profit is looked for out of selfish motives. Tit. 1:11 1s directed against teachers 
of false doctrine from Crete who were spreading abroad ideas with an eye to their 
own advantage. They teach “for base gain” (cf. also the warnings to the leaders and 
deacons of the congregation in 1 Tim. 3:8; Tit. 1:17; 1 Pet. 5:2). Anyone who is out 
for gain and whose view of life is dominated by the profit-motive falls into an 
arrogant self-centredness, and thus into sin (Jas. 4:13). Matt. 16:26 par. Mk. 8:36, 
Lk. 9:25 give a similar warning against finding a basis for one’s life by means of self- 
preservation. It is no use securing the lordship of the world and all its powers, if one’s 
life is forfeited. The most important thing that a man has is his life; but paradoxically 
he must lose it in order to gain it. 

2. Paul develops a positive understanding of gain in Phil. 1:21, and in Phil. 2:5 ff. 
distinguishes it from the values that men put on life. He recounts his own privileges, 
both inherited and acquired, such as his circumcision and membership of the chosen 
people, his conduct in life and his faithful adherence to the law. The historical and 
moral advantages of this sort, which had been his “gain” (kerdos), had become, for 
the sake of Christ, total loss (zemia), because they were bound by the law of reputa- 
tion and achievement, and conferred none of the “righteousness from God” (Phil. 
3:9). Paul, therefore, regards human gains as losses, in order to gain Christ and be 
found in him. The gain of Christ is the ultimate good. Death itself is therefore a 
“gain” (Phil. 1:21), since it marks the end of the life of martyrdom and leads to life 
with Christ. Simply to come to Christ and to be with him is gain. 

3. Allied with this is the particular meaning that gaining takes on in the language 
of mission. Paul conceives of his missionary commission as a “gaining”. In 1 Cor. 
9:19 he declares: “For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to 
all, that I may win [kerdeso] the more.” Winning or gaining here corresponds with 
“saving” in 1 Cor. 9:22; this is the goal of missionary work. 

| 137 


Matt. 18:15 exhorts people to encourage, and so “gain”, the brother who has 
fallen into sin, through their pastoral care and concern. In 1 Pet. 3:1 wives are to 
“win” their husbands who do not obey the word simply by their behaviour. 

4. By contrast with reward (— misthos), which is paid out or earned as recom- 
pense for work done or for certain human behaviour, gain comes from the hidden 
work of Christ. In order to gain “talents” (Matt. 25:16 ff.), whether they be un- 
derstood as men or Christ, one needs his gifts and his commissioning. Only through 
him does life reach its goal: only in him is the perisseia which the Preacher searched 
for in vain — the full measure of God’s grace and his gift of righteousness (Rom. 
5:17). B. Siede 

; Lua@dc (misthos), pay, wages, reward; uicGow (misthoo), 
10 00c ae , eke ae 
hire; picQwtdc (misthotos), hired servant; puicod@pa 
(misthoma), contract price, rent; uioGioc (misthios), hired servant; uioPanodoota 

(misthapodosia), recompense; uicPanoddtns (misthapodotes), one who pays wages, 
a rewarder. 

CL The noun misthos can be traced from Homer onwards in the sense of reward for 

work. But as well as workers, soldiers (Thuc.), orators, doctors or actors (Xen., 
Plato) may also receive misthos. The word occurs mainly in industrial or commercial 
contexts. More rarely, pictorial examples can be found of good fortune being given to 
men as a reward for their ethical endeavours (Pindar, Isoc., Plato). In the religious 
sphere, misthos was not used, since Gk. religion did not rest on the basis of rewards. 
In general, too, it was not reward that was the goal of ethical endeavour, but > 
honour (— Glory, art. time). Happiness (eudaimonia, a word not found in the NT, 
originally referring to the presence of good spirits), was not something one received 
as a gift; one gained it through arete, — virtue. Striving for righteousness or justice 
was only a part of the total endeavour to find arete, as Socrates first pointedly ex- 
pounded. Socrates also delineated the concept of “the Good” (agathos), in which the 
— good man is one whose life is directed towards the Good (agathon), and who con- 
siders the reward or > punishment which awaits him in the next life (cf. the Gorgias 
myth). Plato rarely used the term in ethical contexts, and even when he used the idea 
he thought more in terms of living according to the immanent laws of being (Rep. 10, 
612d ff.). 

From Hellenistic times onwards, the idea of reward penetrated into religious 
thought. As before, in the Orphic and Eleusinian Mysteries, so now the belief in 
rewards and punishments in the next life begins to play a decisive role in the 
Hellenistic religions of Serapis-Isis and of Mithras. In Roman religion the commer- 
cial conception of payment and of reward expanded to include the relationship of 
men to gods, illustrated by the basic phrase do ut des, I give (to you) so that you can 
give (to me); in Roman religion people carried out their stipulated obligations ex- 
pecting help in return. The concept of reward is linked here, clearly, with the 
language of sacrifice (cf. H. Preisker, TDNT IV 705 f.). 

ot 1. The noun misthos stands chiefly for Heb. sakar, hire, wages, reward, 
depending on context (Gen. 15:1; 30:18, 28, 32 f.; 31:8a; Exod. 2:9; 22:14[15]; 


Num. 18:31; Deut. 15:18; 24:15; 1 Ki. 5:20[6]; 2 Chr. 15:7; Ps. 127[126]:3; Eccl. 
4:9; 9:5; Zech. 8:10; 11:12; Mal. 3:5; Isa. 40:10; 62:11; Jer. 31[33]:16; Ezek. 
29:18 f.). The LXX also uses misthos for the following Heb. cognates: maskoret, 
wages, reward (Gen. 29:15; 31:7, 41; Ruth 2:12); sakir, adj. hired (Deut. 24:16; Job 
7:1); Seker, hire, wages (Prov. 11:18); and for the hithp. of the vb. sakar, hire (Hag. 
1:6). The LXX uses misthos to translate the following other Heb. words: ‘eskar, gift 
(Ezek. 27:15; ‘etnan, hire (of a harlot) (Isa. 23:18); m‘hir, price, hire (Mic. 3:11); 
‘izzabon, wares (Ezek. 27:27, 33); po‘al, wages of work (Job 7:2; Jer. 22:13); and 
p°‘ullah, work, recompense (Lev. 19:13). There is no Heb. equivalent in Gen. 31:8b; 
Tob. 2:12, 14; 4:14; 5:3, 7, 9, 14 f.; 12:1 ff, 5; Prov. 11:21; 17:8; Eccl. 9:6; Wis. 
2:22; 5:15; 10:17; Sir. 2:8; 11:18, 22; 34[31]:22; 36:18[21]; 51:22, 30; 2 Macc. 
8:33.) | 

The vb. misthoo normally translates various verbal forms derived from sakar, to 
hire (Gen. 30:16; Deut. 23:5[4]; Jdg. 9:4; 18:4; 2 Sam. 10:6; 2 Ki. 7:6; 1 Chr. 
19:6 f.; 2 Chr. 24:12; 25:6; Neh. 6:12; 13:2; Isa. 7:20; 46:6). The sole exceptions 
are Hos. 3:2 (kardh, get by trade, buy); 2 Esd. 4:5 (Sakar, hire); and 1 Macc. 5:39, 
-where there is no Heb. text. 

Other cognate words in the LXX are: misthios for sakir, a hired servant (Lev. 
19:13; 25:50; Job 7:1; and without Heb. equivalent in Sir. 7:20; 34]31]:22; 37:11); 
misthoma for ’etnan and ’etnan, hire (Deut. 23:19|18]; Mic. 1:7; Ezek. 16:31, 34, 
41), for ‘etnah, hire of a harlot (Hos. 2:14[12]), for nadan, bribe of a harlot (Ezek. 
16:33) and without Heb. equivalent (Prov. 19:13; Ezek. 16:32). misthotes, mer- 
cenary, occurs in 1 Macc. 6:29. misthotos, usually translates sakir, hired servant 
(Exod. 12:45; 22:14[15]; Lev. 19:13; 22:10; 25:6, 40; Deut. 15:18; Job 7:2; 14:6; 
Mal. 3:5; Isa. 16:14; 21:16; Jer. 46[26]:21; though it is without Heb. equivalent at 
Lev. 25:53; Jdg. 4:10; 6:2, 5; Isa. 28:1, 3; 1 Macc. 6:29). 

2.(a) Reward in the OT is primarily used in its secular sense summoning Israelites 
to social action. Daily labourers are to be paid their wages daily in order to avoid 
possible want or starvation (Jer. 22:13; Deut. 24:14; cf. also the wage disagreements 
between Laban and Jacob in Gen. 31:25 ff.). 

(b) Semitic and Israelite thought is largely determined by the connexion between 
the dealings and fortunes of men. Earthly rewards and > punishments are part of the 
obvious make-up of OT faith. Leah receives her son Issachar as a reward from God 
(Gen. 30:18; cf. Ps. 127:3), while Yahweh punishes the Amalekite crimes by putting 
them under a ban and destroying them (1 Sam. 15:2 f.). In earlier days, the negative 
aspect of punishment and retribution stood in the foreground. Amos 1:3—16, in par- 
ticular, sets out the connexion between the bleak fate of Israel and the other nations 
and God’s judgment. Ezekiel replaced the concept of wholesale recompense by that 
of punishment which takes note of more individual offences: “The soul that sins shall 
die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the 
iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the 
wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself’ (Ezek. 18:20). Deut. unfolds a 
positive understanding of reward, for the first time linking together obedience (> 
Hear) and — blessing (cf. Deut. 28:1—15), and their antithesis disobedience and > 
curse (cf. Deut. 28:15—68). But it is in the Wisdom literature that the concept of 
reward receives its distinctive stamp. Here for the first time a systematized pattern is 
developed, possessing authority for the whole of life; the consequence of which is the 



expectation of reward for the righteous, and punishment for the godless (cf. E. 
Wurthwein, 7DNT IV 711). Prov. 11:21 (LXX) reads “Depend upon it! A man who 
is evil does not remain unpunished; a man who sows righteousness will receive a just 
reward” (cf. 11:18 and 31). Job’s attack on the theology of his friends (Job 8:4—6) is 
a protest against this theory of retribution for good and bad, because it does not do 
justice to the real suffering of the godly man (Job 27:51 f). The Preacher’s resigna- 
tion in Eccl. 8:14 also reveals his dissatisfaction with an overneat correlation of 
rewards and punishments: “There is a vanity which takes place on earth, that there 
are righteous men to whom it happens according to the deeds of the wicked, and 
there are wicked men to whom it happens according to the deeds of the righteous. I 
said that this also is vanity.” 

(c) But it is important to note how very different the conception of divine reward 
is from our own human concepts. God is a sovereign Lord who rules his servants — 
and so could be compared to an oriental king — but who is not in the slightest respect 
obliged or compelled by the amount of work they have done. It is a gift that he gives, 
a royal bounty, which far exceeds in value any service from his subjects. Ps. 127:3 is 
a good example of this. Here the two words nah@dah, a possession that has been 
donated, and sakar, reward, are both used in parallel with similar meanings: “Lo, 
sons are a heritage of the LorpD [nah‘at yHwHl, the fruit of the womb a reward 
[Sakar].” The reward that man receives from God, is not payment for services, or a 
remuneration for some achievement worthy of, or appropriate for God; it is 
something conceivable only against the background of ancient social relationships — 
a free gift from a generous king. Similarly Gen. 15:1: “After these things the word of 
the LorRD came to Abram in a vision, ‘Fear not, Abram, I am your shield; your 
reward shall be very great.’ ”’ Dan. 11:39 provides a secular or possibly anti-Jewish 
analogy where the king who is opposing God gives a reward of land to those who 
acknowledge him. The blessings of salvation in the OT and the reward of God are 
always understood in earthly terms (cf. Deut. 28:3 ff., where Deut. speaks of “‘life’’, 
which anyone receives who obeys the commandments). Even in passages like Deut. 
30:15, “life” is to be understood first and foremost in this-worldly terms: “See, I have 
set before you this day life and good, death and evil.” | 

3. It was essentially in later Judaism, when the concept of a final judgment had 
been accepted, that a reward from God was considered as having significance 
beyond this life. But hand in hand with this development went a fateful modification 
in the understanding of reward. Since the Israelite prophets had branded unbelief as 
the source of all corruption, it was not a great step to draw the opposite conclusion 
that one could earn God’s grace in the judgment through good behaviour. Good > 
works become the means of attaining the grace which has as yet not been received, 
and become the pre-condition of the expected reward. The law ceases to be the fence 
which holds Israelites inside the saving boundaries of the covenant, and becomes a 
ladder and a means of acquiring salvation, now thought of in purely futuristic terms. 
“R. Hananiah b. Abashya says: The Holy One, blessed is he, was minded to grant 
merit to Israel; therefore hath he multiplied for them the law and commandmants, as 
it is written, [t pleased the Lord for his righteousness’ sake to magnify the law and 
make it honourable” (Makkoth 3:16; cf. Isa. 42:21; Pirge Aboth 2:16; 3:16; 6:11). 
Yahweh’s covenant has now become a starting-position for self-justification, instead 
of something one aims to fulfil in its own right. One reckons up the precise value of 


some suitable work and sets it off against the appropriate reward; yet one can never 
be quite certain whether this is credited to one’s account or not. Eschatological ex- 
pectation could never become a matter of certain hope, where a conception of reward 
had been perverted into a system of merit and achievement. 

NT 1. In the NT misthos appears noticeably and frequently in Matt. (10 times, as 

against once in Mk. and 3 times in Lk.). The concept is only in the background in 
Paul (5 times) and John (twice). Two surprising compound words are found in Heb. 
which occur nowhere else in the NT: misthapodosia, rewards or recompense (3 
times), and misthapodotes, one who rewards or recompenses (once). 

(a) misthos is a basic part of Jesus’ preaching concerning the coming > kingdom 
of God. Many references give the impression that Jesus took over the prevalent 
Jewish conception of reward; if one sells all one’s possessions, one wins a treasure in 
heaven (Matt. 19:21 par. Mk. 10:21, Lk. 18:22). God will not withhold the reward 
for godliness if it is directed to him and not always concerned with one’s own repu- 
tation in society (Matt. 6:1). Jesus very definitely placed all human action and exist- 
ence under the coming judgment; but this raises the question all the more forcefully, 
as to whether this does not open the flood-gates to “works-righteousness”’. 

The parable of the workers in the vineyard (Matt. 20:1—16) gives an answer to 
this. First, it should be noticed that the landowner is entirely free and under no exter- 
nal constraint (v. 15), a characteristic which is made even clearer in the parable of 
the talents (Matt. 25:24). The reason why those who had worked only an hour were 
paid the same wage as the others who “had borne the burden and heat of the day” (v. 
12) is not that their work was of a higher quality (as in the case in the similar Jewish 
parable about Rabbi Bun bar Hiyya [died c. A.D. 325], reproduced in J. Jeremias, 
The Parables of Jesus, 19637, 138 f.; cf. T. J. Ber. 2:3c). Nor was it that God had 
reckoned their small efforts worth the same pay (as some Catholic interpreters 
understand it, cf. G. Bornkamm, “Der Lohngedanke im Neuen Testament”, 
Gesammelte Aufsatze, I1, 1963 *, 84). Rather, payment is made by the householder 
purely on grounds of freedom and generosity; all thought of balancing effort and 
reward is eliminated. 

God does not only repay far beyond any merit (cf. Lk. 19:17, 19); payment of 
reward is simply independent of the worker’s achievements. Its sole root lies in God’s 
sovereign generosity: “Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to 
me? Or do you begrudge my generosity?’ (Matt. 20:15). Every claim to one’s 
deserts must fall silent in the face of the demand for total obedience: “‘So you also, 
when you have done all that is commanded you, say, ‘We are unworthy servants; we 
have only done what was our duty’ ” (Lk. 17:10). Nevertheless, even the smallest act 
of service in the kingdom of God will not go unrewarded: “And whoever gives to one 
of these little ones even a cup of cold water because he is a disciple, truly, I say to 
you, he shall not lose his reward” (Matt. 10:42; cf. Mk. 9:41). 

(b) A closer examination of the service to be performed and its reward completes 
the picture. Jesus’ polemic against the false piety of the — Pharisees is instructive 
(Matt. 6:1 ff.). A Pharisee who is putting his piety on show is not looking for God’s 
acceptance and honour but for men’s. If men admire him and his virtues, his reward 
has already been paid out to him — literally so (Matt. 6:2, 5, 16). It is paid out by the 
masters he has chosen for himself — men. A truly pious man, however, does 



everything for God’s sake; hence God will reward him in his judgment. This anti- 
thesis of men and God is the essential one in Matt. 6:3, 15, 18, not that of “in secret” 
and openly. True worship should be offered for God’s sake, not man’s. The faith 
which stands on the side of God, ready to — suffer for Jesus’ sake, does not have to 
wait for its reward (Matt. 5:11 ff.). Profession of faith in the Lord is not only verbal; 
it also means acceptance of “the least of these my brethren” in his name (Matt. 
25:40; cf. 25:45; 10:42). Such an attitude is rewarded because and in so far as a per- 
son occupies the place in the kingdom of God which has been prepared for him. Our 
works have no intrinsic moral value which can accrue merit with God. Nor are they 
to be thought of as isolated achievements that might be taken into consideration in 
the judgment. Rather, they are integral parts of faith and of our confession of Christ. 
Only as such are they rewarded, but even this is not dependent on a fixed value-scale 
with quantitive demarcations; the sole basis is our total acceptance by the es- 
chatological judge (Matt. 10:32), which includes full salvation and eternal life (Mk. 
8:36; 10:30). God rewards confession of faith ““a hundredfold”’ in this age and then in 
the age to come (Mk. 10:30; cf. Matt. 19:29; Lk. 18:30). In making the concept of 
reward subsidiary to the prior category of the coming kingdom of God, Jesus makes 
a clean break with the calculating approach of Judaism. 

2. (a) Paul was well acquainted with the thought of judgment based on works (cf. 
Rom. 2:6; 2 Cor. 5:10). But with him the rabbinic Jewish concept of merit is 
replaced by his radical doctrine of justification. How is this to be understood? The 
nature of misthos is explained by the use of other concepts: the righteous man 
receives “praise” (Rom. 2:29), “honour” (Rom. 2:7), and the “prize of the high 
calling” (Phil. 3:14) from God in the judgment. As with Jesus, so with Paul; the 
reward is what the Romans called a praemium (a reward bestowed or a gift), not 
pretium (the price or value set on something) (cf. G. Bornkamm, op. cit., 91). What 
we have earned is > death; — life is what God gives us in his grace (Rom. 6:23). God 
does not owe us this reward; he gives it to us as grace (Rom. 4:4). The doctrine of 
justification thus gives its own particular stamp to the understanding of reward (-> 

(b) This does not mean that the misthos has no place in a Christian’s activity. 
There is the prize that beckons the victor in the race (1 Cor. 9:24; cf. Phil. 3:14). 
There is the acknowledgment that awaits the wise master-builder of the community 
(1 Cor. 3:14). There can, however, only be any question of reward, when it is given 
for something that one is not obliged to do. Paul was under obligation to preach the 
gospel: “For if I preach the gospel, that gives me no ground for boasting. For 
necessity is laid upon me. Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel!” (1 Cor. 9:16). 
But Paul freely waived the church’s obligation to maintain his upkeep, lest he be 
regarded as under obligation to men (1 Cor. 9:15; — Boast). A reward is given for 
something done voluntarily. But although Paul speaks to the Corinthians of his 
reward, his understanding of it is paradoxical. For it turns out that the reward he 
seeks is not something that he covets for himself, but to make the gospel free of 
charge. “For if I do this of my own will [i.e. preach the gospel], I have a reward; but 
if not of my own will, I am entrusted with a commission. What then is my reward? 
Just this: that in my preaching I may make the gospel free of charge, not making full 
use of my right in the gospel” (1 Cor. 9:17 f.). His motive is to avoid putting any 
obstacle in the way of the gospel (1 Cor. 9:12). It is a further aspect of his conduct as 


a skilled master-builder (1 Cor. 3:10) and an apostle who is content to suffer (1 Cor. 
4:9 ff.). As such, it stands in marked contrast with those who are already filled and 
rich, and who reign like kings (1 Cor. 4:8). 

(c) misthos, then, may be thought of as God’s reply to a Christian’ s action, 
although there is no strict causal connexion between the two. Paul’s doctrine of 
justification is carried through to all aspects of Christian living. It is instructive, in 
this respect, to see how Paul, in one particular case, distinguishes between the builder 
and his work which, because it is unserviceable is burned up in the - fire of > judg- 
ment, while he himself is saved, albeit “only as through fire” (1 Cor. 3:15). 
Nevertheless, God’s grace does not allow him to be lost. The ultimate validity of 
grace in pronouncing the verdict of righteous in the last judgment lies in the fact that 
not only our Christian faith but also our good works are just as much the gift of God 
(Eph. 2:10). It is God who “‘is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good 
pleasure” (Phil. 2:13). All personal vainglory is excluded. 

3. Hebrews reveals by its choice of vocabulary that reward can be spoken of only 
in terms of the sovereign act of God. Heb. 10:35 ff. says that it is the blessing of the 
promise that brings us God’s reward (misthapodosia, recompense, and epangelia, 
promise, are in parallel). What is at issue here is not so much reward for individual 
actions; misthapodosia means, rather, the bestowal of eternal life, the summation of 
the Christian hope (Heb. 11:6). No human action can in any way counterbalance 
this in value. On the contrary, this gift is intended for those who seek God with a 
bold faith: “Therefore do not throw away your confidence |parrhesian|, which has 
great reward |megalen misthapodosian]” (Heb. 10:35; > Openness). “And without 
faith it is impossible to please him. For whoever would draw near to God must 
believe that he exists and that he rewards |misthapodotes ginetai| those who seek 
him” (Heb. 11:6). Faith is indeed bound up with — patience and “not neglecting to 
meet together” (Heb. 10:25); but there is never any mention of merit which would 
deserve salvation. Heb. contains repeated warnings against despising the grace of 
God and the day of opportunity (e.g. Heb. 2:7—19; 4:1—13; 6:4-8; 10:35 ff.; 12:3 ff., 
15 ff.; 25 ff.). These references show that there comes a point in sinning which is a 
point of no return. But the believer has not come to Mount Sinai with all its terrors of 
judgment, but “to Mount Zion, to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, 
and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, and to the assembly of the first-born 
who are enrolled in heaven, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, and to Jesus, 
the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks more 
graciously than the blood of Abel” (Heb. 12:12 ff.). The prospect of judgment for the 
faithful is not a petty reckoning up of human values and achievements, but a joyful 
hopefulness (Heb. 10:35). In this respect > Moses is an example of faith, for “he con- 
sidered abuse suffered for the Christ greater wealth than the treasures of Egypt, for 
he looked to the reward [misthapodosian|’’ (Heb. 11:26, on the meaning of this verse 
— Possessions, art. thesauros, NT 3). 

4. In Jn. 4 Jesus’ discourse with the disciples following the conversation with the 
Samaritan woman shows that the “harvest”, the eschatological age of salvation, has 
already broken in (— Seed, Harvest; > Black, White, Red, art. Jeukos). Indeed, the 
“reaper” is already drawing his pay. “He who reaps receives wages [misthon|, and 
gathers fruit for eternal life, so that sower and reaper may rejoice together. For here 
the saying holds true, ‘One sows and another reaps.’ I sent you to reap that for which 



you did not labour; others have laboured, and you have entered into their labour” 
(Jn. 4:36 ff.). For related imagery, see Lev. 26:5; Deut. 28:33; Jdg. 6:3; Ps. 126:5 f.; 
Amos 9:13; Mic. 6:15; Matt. 9:37 f. par. Lk. 10:1 f.; and T. Peah 4:18 (“My fathers 
have gathered treasures in this age; I have gathered treasures in the age to come’”’). 
The thought of wages is not a matter of merit. Rather, the fact that the reaper is 
receiving his wages underlines the presence of the eschatological hour. The “work of 
God” which has eternal life as its consequence is faith (Jn. 6:29). It is in this sense 
that 2 Jn. 8 speaks of the misthos of faith: “Look to yourselves, that you may not 
lose what you have worked for, but may win a full reward.” 

5. According to the witness of the OT and the NT, the fulfilment of life’s meaning 
is not something that lies within our capacity. It is a gift that comes from outside our- 
selves. It comes from God himself who, as our judge, pronounces us righteous 
despite ourselves. All rewards lie in God’s gift. This excludes the idea of God having 
to bestow an equivalent reward for our meritorious action. And yet there is a connec- 
tion between the anticipated reward and our conduct. But the relationship is not one 
of direct cause and effect. We see it, when we realize that all goodness comes from 
God and that the reward is yet one further token of the free grace of God which 
enabled us to act in the first place. The NT statements about rewards are thus op- 
posed to the diametrically opposite ideas that man can deserve salvation and that 
justification by faith makes unimportant what we do with our lives. 

P. C. Bottger 

Gyaviov Oyawylov (opsonion), wages, payment. 

CL & OT opsonion is a combination (from Menander’s time) from opson, any kind of 

sustenance prepared on a fire (as distinct from — bread and other accompani- 
ments to a meal, such as wine) and oneomai, buy. It refers actually to the cash one 
needs to buy such additional foods (1 Esd. 4:56); then (in the plur. and also in LX X) 
particularly to a soldier’s maintenance allowances, which he received above and 
beyond natural provisions, such as cereal and oil. Finally, it means wages in general 
(1 Macc. 3:28; 14:32), and occasionally the salary of government officials. opsonion 
can thus be seen to be a regular term used with strict reference to payment which one 
is entitled to receive daily or monthly, etc., and for which one could eventually sue, if 
need be. It is a minimum subsistence wage rather than an appropriate reward for 
work carried out (— misthos; and cf. Lat. stipendium). 

NT opsonion occurs 4 times in the NT. Apart from the Baptist’s advice to the soldiers 
to be satisfied with their wages (Lk. 3:14), it occurs only in Paul (1 Cor. 9:7; 
2 Cor. 11:8; Rom. 6:23). . 

1. In 1 Cor. 9:7 Paul uses the term opsonia (plur.) to refer to the support to which 
he was entitled from the various congregations as remuneration for his missionary 
work (cf. 2 Cor. 11:8). This is not only an allusion to soldiers’ pay, comparing his 
missionary work with military service; it also implies the legal claim of the apostle on 
the congregations. Hence, for Paul to waive his opsonion is to underline that God’s 
gift of grace costs nothing, just as it is offered to all men in the apostolic preaching 
without any conditions ( — misthos, NT). 



2. Rom. 6:23 is not a pronouncement about the nature of — death. The point of 
the verse is to state that sin pays out wages. thanatos is a predicative noun, not the 
subject of the sentence. The wages of sin and the gift of God are set over against one 
another in antithesis. ta opsonia are the provisions which sin pays out to those who 
do military service for it, and these provisions for life consist in — death! Sin promises 
life and gives death; but this death does not just begin at the end of our temporal life, 
it is the current payment which we already receive. That is the only right which we 
can lay claim to, as sinners (v. 23a). But over against this right stands God’s gift of > 
grace which we receive in service under him (v. 23b). This is not a relationship which 
insists on its rights but one which is based on grace. No one in God’s service can 
claim anything as of right; he receives eternal life as a free gift from God. 

O. Becker 
—+ Judgment, — Poor, > Possessions, ~ Punishment, > Righteousness, — Work 

(a). F. Buchsel, apodidomi, TDNT II 169; C. Caragounis, NovT 16, 1974, 35 ff.; K. P. Donfried, 
“Justification and Last Judgment in Paul”, Jnterpretation 30, 1976, 140-52; F. V. Filson, St. Paul’s 
Conception of Recompense, 1931; H. W. Heidland, opsonion, TDNT V 591 f.; A. Marmorstein, The 
Doctrine of Merits in Old Rabbinical Literature, I—-II, (1920) 1968; H. Preisker and E. Wurthwein, 
misthos etc.,. TDNT IV 695-728; P. S. Minear, “And great shall be your reward”, Yale Studies in 
Religion 12, 1941; L. Morris, The Biblical Doctrine of Judgment, 1960; G. de Ru, “The Conception of 
Reward in the Teaching of Jesus”, NovT 8, 1966, 202 ff.; H. Schlier, kerdos etc., TDNT III 672 f.; 
W. S. Towner, “Retributional Theology in the Apocalyptic Setting”, Union Seminary Quarterly Review 
26, 1917, 203-14. 

(b). A. Alt, “Zur Talionsformel”, ZA W 52 (Neue Folge 11), 1934, 303 ff. (reprinted in Kleine Schriften 
zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel, 1, 1968, 341 ff.); W. Bienart, Die Arbeit nach der Lehre der Bibel, 
1956’, 88-96; G. Bornkamm, “Der Lohngedanke im Neuen Testament”, EvTh 6, 1946, 143 ff. (reprin- 
ted in Studien zu Antike und Christentum. Gesammelte Aufsdtze, Il, 19637, 69 ff.); H. Braun, 
Gerichtsgedanke und Rechtfertigungslehre bei Paulus, Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 19, 
1930; H. Gomperz, Die Lebensauffassungen der griechischen Philosophie und das Ideal der inneren 
Freiheit, 1927; F. Horst, ““Recht und Religion im Bereich des Alten Testaments”, EvTh 16, 1956, 49 ff. 
(reprinted in Gottes Recht, ThB 12, 1961, 286 ff.); L. Ihmels, Der Lohngedanke in der Ethik Jesu, 
1908; E. Jungel, Paulus und Jesus, Hermeneutische Untersuchungen zur Theologie 2, 1962, 66—70; F. 
K. Karner, Die Bedeutung des Vergeltungsgedankens fur die Ethik Jesu (Dissertation, Leipzig, 1927); 
V. Kirchner, Der:Lohn in der alten Philosophie, im burgerlichen Recht, besonders im Neuen Testament, 
1908; K. Koch, “Gibt es ein Vergeltungsdogma im Alten Testament?”, Z7K 52, 1955, 1-42; K. Koch, 
W. Bienert and P. Jacobs, “Vergeltung und Vergebung”’, EKL III 1636 ff.; G. Lanczkowski et al., 
“Vergeltung”, RGG? VI 1341 ff.; E. Lohmeyer, Die Briefe an die Philipper, an die Kolosser und an 
Philemon, KEK 9, 1964 '3, 57 ff., 131 #f.; L. Mattern, Das Verstadndnis des Gerichts bei Paulus, 1966; 
O. Merk, Handeln aus Glauben. Die Motivierungen der paulinischen Ethik, 1968; O. Michel, “Der 
Lohngedanke in der Verkiindigung Jesu”, ZSTh 9, 1932, 47 ff.; W. Pesch, Der Lohngedanke in der 
Lehre Jesu verglichen mit der religidsen Lehre des Spdtjudentums, Miinchener theologische Studien 7, 
1955; W. Preiser, “Vergeltung und Sthne im deutschen Strafrecht”, in Festschrift E. Schmidt, 1961, 
7 ff.; K. H. Rengstorf, “Die Frage des gerechten Lohnes in der Verktindigung Jesu”, Festschrift Karl 
Arnold, 1955, 141-155; O. Schulthess, misthos, Pauly-Wissowa XV 2078 ff.; M. Wagner, “Der 
Lohngedanke im Evangelium”, Neue kirchliche Zeitschrift 43, 1932, 106-12; K. Weiss, Die 
Frohbotschaft Jesu uber Lohn und Vollkommenheit, NTAbh 12, 4/5, 1927. 

Reconciliation, Restoration, Propitiation, Atonement 

Reconciliation means the restoration of a good relationship between enemies. In or- 
der to achieve this good relationship in the confrontation of God and man, it is 
necessary that the factors which produce the enmity be removed. This is achieved by 
atonement. These various aspects involve the use of the three groups of words dealt 



with in this article. (ex-)hilaskomai and its derivatives belong to the cultic realm and 
chiefly denote actions which are supposed originally to make the gods favourably 
disposed and, later, to expiate > sin. The group of words around katallasso, on the 
other hand, comes from the secular world and indicates the improvement (allasso, to 
change) of a negative relationship. apokatastasis is a technical term in politics and 
eschatology, meaning a partial or universal restoration. In the NT the cultic term 
hilasmos, the political term apokatastasis and the ordinary term katallage are all 
comparatively rare, but they occur in crucial passages. 

Fe ees dnokaGiotnu (apokathistemi) and dnoxafiotavw (apo- 
|__ dnoxard $ kathistano), re-establish, restore; a@moKataotaois (apo- 
katastasis), restoration. 

cL 1. The vb. apokathistemi (Xen. onwards) meant originally to restore to a 

previous state, and then generally to restore. It is found at first in a literal and 
non-religious context: of the giving back of what has been lent (Xen., Respublica 
Lacedaemionorum 6, 3), of the renovation of a canal (W. Dittenberger, Orientis 
Graecae Inscriptiones, I-I], 1903—5, 672), of the restoration of a sick person 
(Dioscorides, De Materia Medica 1, 64, 4); later, more generally, of the renewal of 
the world (Lactantius, Divinae Institutiones 7, 18). 

2. A derivative of the vb. is the later noun apokatastasis (e.g. Aristotle, Magna 
Moralia 1204b, 36) with the basic meaning of re-establishment of a former state, 
restoration. Here again we find :t chiefly in secular contexts to begin with: the bring- 
ing back of hostages (Polybius, 3, 99, 6), the improvement of a road (Dittenberger, 
op. cit., 483, 8), the reconstitution of a city’s affairs (Polybius, 4, 23, 1). | 

3. These words have a specialized use in connexion with astronomical and 
cosmological speculation in the Hellenistic and late classical age. Thus apokatastasis 
became a “technical term for the restitution of the cosmic cycle” of the constellations 
(A. Oepke, TDNT I 390). Ancient, and particularly Stoic, thought imagined the 
course of the universe in terms of an infinite series of cyclical cosmic periods (H. von 
Arnim, Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta, II, 190), of which the apokatastasis is 
always the final stage of the old period and the point where the new one begins. In 
Stoicism and the Hermetic literature the concept of apokatastasis is occasionally 
associated with political expectations (cf. Corp. Herm. 11, 2); and in the neo- 
Platonism of the post-Christian era we find an anthropological application to the > 
soul of the individual (Iamblichus, De Mysteriis 1, 10; Proclus, Institutio Theologica 
199). Here the apokatastasis designates the repeated entry of the immortal soul into 
the mortal body through reincarnation, with the object of thus being cleansed from 
matter and reattaining its original condition, which is itself also sometimes called 
apokatastasis (e.g. Corp. Herm. 8, 4). 

oT 1. Only the vb. is found in the LXX, usually to translate the root 5#b, in the qal 

meaning to turn back, return; in the piel to bring back: and most frequently hiph. 
to bring back, restore. In non-religious contexts apokathistemi can take on a wide 
range of meanings, especially in the early strands of the Pentateuch: e.g., Abraham 
paying money to Ephron (Gen. 23:16); a stone being rolled from the mouth of a well 



(Gen. 29:3); a man being reinstated in his office (Gen. 41:13); water flowing back 
(Exod. 14:26 ff.). 

2. More important is the use of the word in the message of the prophets. While 
apokathistemi is found but rarely in the preaching of the early prophets (e.g., Amos 
5:15; Hos. 2:5[3]; 11:11), it has a special theological significance in the announce- 
ment of eschatological salvation in exilic and post-exilic prophecy. Yahweh will bring 
Israel back from exile into his own land (Jer. 16:15; 23:8; 24:6). Ezekiel draws a 
parallel between the eschatological restoration of Israel and his beginnings (Ezek. 
16:55), and Mal. 4:6 (3:24) prophesies of the > Elijah redivivus who will turn the 
hearts of fathers and sons towards each other again. Thus in the LX X apokathistemi 
becomes more and more the term for the eschatological, and in part messianic, hopes 
of Israel for restoration of her former state. 

3. This tendency is stronger still in the intertestamental writings, in which 
apokathistemi is used for Aram. tib, to return. Here the word acquires at times a 
specifically political character. In Dan. 4:33f. it is used of Nebuchadnezzar’s 
recovery of power and dominion; while 1 Macc. 15:3 speaks of the plans of An- 
tiochus VII to regain control of “the kingdom of our fathers” and re-establish the for- 
mer state of affairs. Josephus used apokatastasis in describing the return of the Jews 
from exile (Ant. 11, 63), but Philo linked this idea with the mystical one of the 
restoration of the soul (Rev.Div.Her. 293). 

4. In this connexion mention should also be made of the political, messianic hope 
of the > Samaritans, which centred upon an eschatological figure known as the 
Taheb, the returner, the restorer (cf. Josephus, Ant. 18, 85; cf. A. Merx, Der Messias 
oder Taéb der Samaritaner, 1909; J. Macdonald, The Theology of the Samaritans, 
1964, 362-71). 

NT In the NT the vb. is found 8 times (mostly in the Synoptic Gospels), and the noun 
only once (Acts 3:21). 

1. (a) In Mk. 3:5 par. Matt. 12:13, Lk. 6:10 and Mk. 8:25 the original non- 
religious meaning of apokathistemi is found in connexion with the healing of the sick: 
a hand or a blind man is restored, i.e. healed. Heb. 13:19 (‘that I may be restored to 
you the sooner’, i.e. that I may come to you sooner) likewise goes back to ordinary 
Gk. usage. 

(b) Mk. 9:12 par. Matt. 17:11 is an allusion to Mal. 4:5 f. (3:23 f.). In the debate 
about the messiah, the political messianic hopes, which centred upon the figure of > 
Elijah redivivus “who will restore all things”, are countered by reference to the fate of 
the Son of man, who “will suffer many things and be despised”. In the NT the Jewish 
political concept of the messiah associated with apokathistemi is transformed into 
the doctrine of the suffering Son of man, with the consequence that this usage of the 
vb. noticeably recedes (— Jesus Christ, art. Christos; + Son of God, art. hyios tou 
anthropou; — War). 

A similar tendency may be seen in Acts 1:6 ff. To the question of the disciples, still 
conceived in terms of a political messiah, “Will you at this time restore the kingdom 
to Israel?”, a reply is given which forbids reckoning and calculation, and points to 
the promised gift of the > Spirit. Luke thus raises the question to a different level: in 
the era of the church it is not political control that matters, but the interim kingdom 
of the Spirit and of power. 



2. (a) The passage from Peter’s sermon at the temple portico, which is the only 
place in the NT where the noun apokatastasis is found, reads: “Repent therefore and 
turn again, that your sins may be blotted out, that times of refreshing may come 
from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Christ appointed for you, 
Jesus, whom heaven must receive until the time for establishing all |achri chronon 
apokatastaseos panton| that God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets from of 
old” (Acts 3:19 ff.). This sentence accords with the eschatological messianic hope of 
OT prophecy and Judaism (see above OT 2). The apokatastasis panton does not 
mean the conversion of all mankind, but the restoration of all things and cir- 
cumstances which the OT prophets proclaimed, i.e. the universal renewal of the 
earth. While the kairoi anapsyxeos, “times of refreshing”, mean the coming in of the 
change and the subjective effects of this event, the chronoi apokatastaseos, “‘times of 
restoration” [or “establishing” RSV], emphasize the objective side and the perma- 
nent condition of the world renewed (cf. A. Oepke, TDNT I 392). 

(b) In the early church Origen used Acts 3:21 as the basis for a theory of the 
Apokatastasis, i.e. the doctrine of the restoration of all created things. Central to this 
is the view that God’s work of salvation has as its aim the removal of all the disorder 
in creation which has resulted from sin, and so the medical, political and cosmic 
restoration of all created things to the harmony of one all-embracing order of being 
(Origen, De Prin. 1, 6, 1-4; 2, 3, 1-5; 3, 6, 1-9). This doctrine of universal 
Apokatastasis, which includes elements of late classical and Jewish ideas of 
Apokatastasis, was taken up in the East by Gregory of Nyssa, and in the West by 
Scotus Erigena, Hans Denck, J. A. Bengel, F. C. Oetinger, F. D. E. Schleiermacher 
and others, and in some cases developed with reference to man into the doctrine of 
universalism. (Cf. TDNT I 392 f.; B. Altaner, Patrology, 1960, 233, 324, 353, 356, 
455, 632.) Although he rejected Origen’s teaching, Karl Barth came close to the idea 
(CD IT, 2, 172 f., 295, 352 f., 417, 422, 476; cf. C. Brown, Karl Barth and the Chris- 
tian Message, 1967, 130-33). From an exegetical point of view there is less justifica- 
tion for this doctrine in Acts 3:21 than in 1 Cor. 15:27 f. From the point of view of 
systematic theology, the doctrine of Apokatastasis or of universalism should be con- 
sidered less in the context of Jewish political hopes and classical cosmology than in 
that of the universal significance of the Christ event. H.-G. Link 

ae idews (hileos), gracious, merciful; (Adoxoyuat (hilaskomai), 
propitiate, expiate, conciliate, make gracious, be gracious; 
thaouoc (hilasmos), propitiation, propitiatory sacrifice; fAaotnpiov (hilasterion), that 
which expiates or propitiates, means of propitiation, mercy-seat. 

cL 1. (a) The adj. hileos, -on, is the Attic form of hilaos or hileos, kindly, gracious, 

and a parallel word to hilaros, cheerful (cf. Lat. hilaris). It meant originally cheer- 
ful, joyous (Plato, Laws 1, 649a); later, kindly, gracious, benevolent (e.g. Xen., Cyr. 
1, 6, 2). hileos is chiefly used of rulers or gods; in connexion with gods the phrase 
hileo poiein, to make gracious, is found (Plato, Laws 10, 910a). 

(b) The mid. deponent hilaskomai (Homer onwards), is etymologically connected 
with hilaos and hileos, friendly, gracious, and hilemi, to be gracious. Like the inten- 
sive form exhilaskomai (Hdt. onwards), it has a causative meaning: to make 


gracious, appease (e.g. Homer, Od. 3, 419; Hdt. 7, 141). The passive aor. hilasthenai 
should be translated in an intrans. middle sense: to let oneself be appeased, to have 
mercy (especially common is the imperative hilastheti, be merciful). Generally the 
subject is a man, and the object a deity; the setting is usually a cultic action by which 
the deity is to be appeased (Hdt. 5, 47; 6, 105; Xen., Cyr. 7, 2, 19). Sometimes a man 
(e.g. the emperor) is the object of hilaskesthai, which can then be rendered to con- 
ciliate (Plutarch, Antonius 67, 3), or bribe (Hdt., 8, 112, 2). 

(c) The noun hilasmos, which is derived from hilaskomai, is rare and found 
mainly in late writings. It denotes the action by which a deity is to be propitiated (e.g. 
Plutarch, Solon 12). 

(d) to hilasterion is the neut. adjectival noun from hilasterios. On Gk. inscriptions 
it means a propitiatory gift for the gods (W. R. Paton and E. L. Hicks, eds., The 
Inscriptions of Cos, 1891, nos. 81, 347). 

2. The basic idea behind the Gk. hilasmos is man’s effort to dispose in his favour 
the awful and frequently calamitous power of the dead, the demons and the gods, 
and to strengthen his own actions by the assistance of supernatural forces. This 
presupposes some elementary knowledge of the threat posed to human existence by 
the envy, punishment, wrath and baseless anger of the all-powerful gods. The 
propitiation of deities is done by means of cultic acts, including human or animal 
sacrifice, purificatory rites, prayers, and also dances and games (cf. F. Buichsel, 
TDNT Ill 311 f.). In Rhodes and Massilia criminals were sacrificed until a late 
period in order that the city might be absolved. Human sacrifice, offered with- 
out scruple in Homeric times, did however become less frequent as civilization 
progressed, and was replaced by symbolic acts. In cases of extreme need a ver 
sacrum was sometimes vowed, which meant that the animals born in the following 
spring had to be sacrificed, and the humans when they had grown up must go into 

In later, more enlightened times the power of the gods lost some of its terrors, and 
so the significance of propitiatory rites diminished. In Stoicism the cultic rites are 
replaced by the moral person, who lives in keeping with the will of the deity by means 
of ethical behaviour. 

OT 1. (a) In contrast to the usage of classical Gk. (cf. cL 1(a) hileo poiein), the terms 

used in the LXX are hileos einai or genesthai, to be or become gracious, trans- 
lating the Heb. salah, to forgive (15 times), and niham, to be sorry, be moved to 
pity, etc. The adj. hileos occurs in the LXX only as a predicate of God. 

(b) The vb. hilaskomai is found relatively seldom (12 times) in the LX X, and only 
in a mid. or pass. sense: to have mercy (with Yahweh as subject), usually (7 times) in 
translation of the Heb. salah, to forgive. The compound form exhilaskomai is found 
considerably more often (about 100 times), and in by far the majority of cases (about 
80) its Heb. equivalent is kipper, to cover, propitiate. Accordingly, exhilaskomai 1s 
used predominantly in the active sense, to propitiate, and refers to the cultic activity 
of the — priest (the majority of places where it is used occur in the priestly writing of 
Exod.-Num.). Occasionally exhilaskomai has the sense of purify (of objects; Heb. 
hitte’, e.g. Ezek. 43:20, 22, 23), or entreat the favour of (a person, Heb. hilldh, e.g. 
Zech. 7:2; 8:22; Mal. 1:9). The important point to note is that with exhilaskomai the 
grammatical subject is usually a man (the priest) and the object God. In Sir., 



however, sin is the object (e.g. Sir. 20:28), and the subject is either God (Sir. 5:6; 
34:19[31:23]) or man (Sir. 3:3, 30; 20:28) (see further F. Biichsel, TDNT III 315). 

(c) The LXX generally uses hilasmos (about 100 times) or exhilasis (twice) and 
exhilasmos (about 15 times) to translate derivatives of the Heb. vb. kipper (piel), to 
cover over, pacify, propitiate, which describe the process of propitiation (sacrificial 
propitiation in the cult, e.g. Lev. 23:27 f.; 25:9). 

2.(a) Sacrificial rites are widespread throughout the ancient world, and there is 
nothing originally or specifically Israelite about them (see above, OT). Some scholars 
hold with G. von Rad that sacrifice and its attendant rites were not the creation of 
original Yahwism. “It was only in Canaan that Israel entered into an old and 
widespread sacral practice, into which she later poured her own ideas” (Old Testa- 
ment Theology, 1, 1962, 252). In pre-exilic writings we find the common concept of 
sacrifice, i.e. that of propitiating an angry deity: “If it is the LORD who has stirred you 
[Saul] up against me |David], may he accept an offering” (1 Sam. 26:19; cf. also 
Gen. 8:20 ff.; 2 Sam. 24:17—25). 

(b) According to some critical views cultic rites and forgiveness of sins were of 
little importance in pre-exilic Israel. But for the exilic and post-exilic community they 
took up a central place in the worship of Yahweh (cf. K. Koch, “Sthne and Sunden- 
vergebung um die Wende von der exilischen zur nachexilischen Zeit”, Ev7h 26, Neue 
Folge 21, 1966, 217 ff.). Even from a statistical survey of the occurrence of these 
words, it is clear that exhilaskomai, hilasmos and hilasterion, like their Heb. 
equivalents, are found almost exclusively in passages attributed to the priestly 
writings. ([Ed.] This point appears to be a tautology: if the passages designated as 
belonging to the priestly writings are defined in terms of their interest in the cult, it is 
inevitable that cultic terms will predominate in them.) At the same time there took 
place a general reinterpretation of the concept of propitiation widely held in the an- 
cient world and taken over by Israel. This may be seen in the Pentateuch and 
passages like Isa. 43:22—25. The emphasis changed from the attempt to change the 
deity’s mind by man-made sacrifice, to the specifically Israelite idea of propitiation, 
according to which Yahweh makes atonement for his people (cf. Deut. 21:8). Up till 
now OT scholarship has not been able to explain adequately what caused this 
transformation in the concept of propitiation to take place (cf. K. Koch, op. cit., 
224 f.). 

(c) The characteristic Israelite concept of propitiation can only be understood 
against the background of the OT doctrine of sin (— Sin, art. adikia, oT 2). An of- 
fence (even if unconscious) against Yahweh’s covenant laws gives rise to objective 
guilt (cf. | Sam. 14:2 ff.), which sets in motion a destructive force whose disastrous 
effects fall of necessity as punishment on the miscreant and his affairs (cf. G. von 
Rad, op. cit., I, 265-79). This chain of sin and disaster can be halted only by 
Yahweh, inasmuch as he diverts the evil effect of a misdeed from the doer and his af- 
fairs to a beast, which dies in his place, the classic example being the ritual of the 
scapegoat given to Azazel on the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16:20 ff.). In this act of 
atonement the subject, who brings about the atonement, is thus Yahweh. The > 
priests function merely as his representatives in the cultic action (cf. Exod. 28:38; 
Num. 18:22 f.), while the wrongdoer or the sinful people are the recipients of the 
atonement. According to the Israelite view, life is actually carried in the > blood, and 
therefore blood acts as the means of atonement (Lev. 17:11; cf. 17:14; Gen. 9:4; 


Deut. 12:23). Sin can be transferred, because the animal, being a possession, has “a 
part in the personality of the man or human community” (K. Koch, op. cit., 229). 
Yahweh has given the — sacrifices to his people in order to take away “‘the iniquity of 
the congregation” (Lev. 10:17). H.-G. Link 

3. In discussing reconciliation and atonement it has become customary to draw a 
distinction between propitiation and expiation. In propitiation the action 1s directed 
towards God or some other offended person. The underlying purpose is to change 
God’s attitude from one of wrath to one of good-will and favour. In the case of expia- 
tion, on the other hand, the action is directed towards that which has caused the 
breakdown in the relationship. It is sometimes held that, while God is not personally 
angry with the sinner, the act of sin has initiated a train of events which can only be 
broken by some compensatory rite or act of reparation for the offence. In short, 
propitiation is directed towards the offended person, whereas expiation is concerned 
with nullifying the offensive act. 

(a) G. von Rad is not untypical of a broad segment of biblical scholars who main- 
tain that sacrifice in the Bible is concerned with expiation rather than with propitia- 
tion. Commenting on Lev. 17:11 (“For the life of the flesh is the blood; and I have 
given it for you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood 
that makes atonement, by reason of the life’’), von Rad writes: “But it is not the 
blood in itself that effects expiation, but the blood in so far as the life is contained in 
it. Expiation therefore does not depend upon the blood, but upon the life, whose 
bearer the blood is” (op. cit., I, 270; cf. J. Herrmann, Die Idee der Suhne im Alten 
Testament, 1905, 67). Further support for this idea of expiation is found in the provi- 
sions made by Deut. 21:1—9 for purging “the guilt of innocent blood in the midst of 
thy people Israel” (v. 8). “As a rule ... expiation is effected through the vicarious 
death of an animal. But what is of special importance in this connexion is that appeal 
is made to Jahweh himself actively to effect the expiation. Accordingly the one who 
receives expiation is not Jahweh, but Israel: Jahweh is rather the one who acts, in 
averting the calamitous curse which burdens the community” (op. cit., I, 270). 
_ Similarly, von Rad interprets the Day of Atonement ritual (Lev. 16): “What was ef- 
fected in expiation was that in both cases, with persons and objects alike, Jahweh 
removed the baneful influence of an act. He broke the nexus of sin and calamity; and 
this was as a rule effected by way of channelling the baneful influence of the evil into 
an animal which died vicariously for the man (or the cultic object). Expiation was 
thus not a penalty, but a saving event” (op. cit., I, 271). Von Rad’s position essen- 
tially reiterates that of G. F. Oehler: “The law nowhere indicates that in sacrifice... 
an act of punitive punishment is executed; it in no way asks us to look on the altar as 
a place of punishment” (Theology of the Old Testament, 1874, 431). 

(b) The case for expiation rather than propitiation has been further supported on 
linguistic grounds by C. H. Dodd in his article on “hilaskesthai, its Cognates, 
Derivatives and Synonyms in the Septuagint” (JTS 32, 1931, 352—60; reprinted with 
minor alterations in ““Atonement”, The Bible and the Greeks, 1935, 82—95; quota- 
tions are from the latter). Dodd’s argument is based upon an analysis of the meaning 
of the Greek words used in the LXX to translate the OT Heb. kipper. He points out 
that “The stock rendering is hilaskesthai, or exhilaskesthai, with the corresponding 
substantives hilasmos, exhilasis, exhilasma. In classical Greek and in the Koine 



hilaskesthai, exhilaskesthai, have regularly the meaning ‘placate’, ‘propitiate’, with a 
personal object. As a secondary meaning exhilaskesthai also bears the sense ‘ex- 
piate’, with an impersonal object; e.g. Plato, Laws, 862c, to apoinois exhilasthen, 
Ditt. Syll3 1042, hos d’ an polypragmonese ta tou theou é periergasetai, hamartian 
opheileto Meni Tyranno en ou me dynetai exhilasasthai. Thus the words are in them- 
selves ambiguous, and a close study of LXX usage is necessary to determine which 
sense predominated in Hellenistic Judaism” (op. cit., 82). 

Before proceeding to examine Dodd’s case in detail, it may be noted with Leon 
Morris that the quotation from Plato is concerned with the legislator who must en- 
deavour to restore good relations by payment of indemnity for injury. The context 
suggests that it is the appeasement of a person that is in mind rather than the expia- 
tion of a crime (The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross, 1963%, 146; cf. also F. 
Buchsel, 7 DNT III 316). The probable date of the Men Tyrannus inscription, 
referred to by Dodd, is in the 2nd or 3rd century A.D., and can hardly be decisive for 
the determination of the translation of the LXX. 

Dodd’s article was basically a schematic analysis of the words used in the LXX to 
translate the Heb. kipper. He began by noting words used other than hilaskomai etc., 
such as hagiazo, sanctify (Exod. 29:33, 36), katharizo, cleanse (Exod. 29:37; cf. v. 
36; Deut. 32:43; Isa. 47:11), and athooo, pronounce free from guilt (Jer. 18:23). 
Other passages that Dodd examined were Dan. 9:24 and Exod. 30:10. Dodd con- 
cluded that, “where the LXX translators do not render kipper and its derivatives by 
words of the hilaskesthai class, they render it by words which give the meaning ‘to 
sanctify’, ‘purify’ persons or objects of ritual, or ‘to cancel’, ‘purge away’, ‘forgive’ 
sins. We should therefore expect to find that they regard the hilaskesthai class as 
conveying similar ideas” (op. cit., 84). 

Dodd then turned to passages where the hilaskesthai word-group translates words 
other than kipper and its derivatives. He instances: exhilaskesthai, in the middle 
voice with a human subject, for hitte’, cleanse from defilement (2 Chr. 29:24; 30:18; 
Ezek. 43:26; cf. v. 23; 45:15, 17, 20; cf. v. 19; Hab. 1:11; Amos 8:14; hilaskesthai, 
in the middle with divine subject, for salah, to forgive (2 Ki. 5:18; Ps. 25[24]:11; 2 
Chr. 6:30; cf. exhilasmos in Dan. 9:9 Theodotion; Sir. 5:5 f.); hilaskesthai in the 
passive, hileos einai or gignesthai, euhilateuein, all with divine subject, for salah, for- 
give (Deut. 29:20; 2 Sam. 24:4; Amos 7:2 and various unspecified instances in | K1., 
2 Chr. and Jer.); hileos gignesthai, euhilatos gignesthai, with divine subject for nasa’ 
(1°), lit. lift up, i.e. pardon (Num. 14:19; Ps. 109[108]:8; Sir. 16:7); hilaskesthai in the 
passive, hileos gignesthai, with divine subject, for niham (niphal) and riham (piel), 
have compassion (Exod. 32:12, 14; Isa. 54:10); exhilaskesthai in the middle with a 
human subject and God as the object, for hillah, appease, pacify, propitiate (Zech. 
7:2; 8:22; Mal. 1:9, the first clear examples which Dodd allows of this meaning); 
exhilaskesthai in the middle with a human subject, for pillel, pray, intercede (Ps. 
106[105]:30; cf. Num. 25:11, where Dodd allows an element of propitiation). Dodd 
concludes that, “‘where words of the hilaskesthai class do not render kipper and its 
derivatives, everywhere, except in the four cases last considered, they render words 
which fall into one or other of two classes: (i) with human subject, ‘to cleanse from 
sin or defilement’, ‘to expiate’; (ii) with divine subject, ‘to be gracious’, ‘to have 
mercy’, ‘to forgive’” (op. cit., 88). 

Finally, Dodd examined those passages where the hilaskesthai group translates 


kipper and its derivatives. Dodd noted the following types of usage. hilaskesthai and 
exhilaskesthai in the middle voice with a direct object mean to cleanse, purge, 
sanctify, cancel sin etc., as in the Men Tyrannus inscription (Lev. 16:16, 33; Ezek. 
45:20 and other unspecified passages in Lev. and Ezek.; Dan. 9:24 Theodotion; Sir. 
3:30). It has the same meaning in the passive, as in Plato’s Laws (Num. 35:33; Deut. 
21:8; 1 Sam. 3:14), where as before, the subject is human. Only in Ps. 65:3 (64:4) is 
the subject God. In view of this, Dodd gives the meaning of expiation to exhilasmos 
(Heb. kippurim, Exod. 30:10 A; Lev. 23:27 f.; Num. 5:8; Heb. kapporet, 1 Chr. 
28:11), exhilasis (Heb. kippurim, Num. 29:11; cf. Hab. 3:17), and hilasterion (Heb. 
kapporet, Exod. 25:17—22[16—21]; 31:7; 35:12; 37:6[38:5]; 37:6, 8 f. [38:5, 7 f.]; 
Lev. 16:2, 13 ff.; Num. 7:89). hilaskesthai and exhilaskesthai in the middle with 
prepositional phrases (epi, peri, hyper), with a human subject, is the most frequent 
use (e.g. Exod. 30:15 f.; 32:30; Ezek. 45:17; and frequently in Ezek. and the Pen- 
tateuch). This usage corresponds to the Heb. kipper with the acc. or the prepositions 
‘al, b*‘ad. Dodd takes the meaning here to be: to make expiation for, to expiate or 
cleanse. Where hilaskesthai and exhilaskesthai occur in the middle with a dat. and a 
divine subject (Ps. 78177]: 38; Ezek. 16:63) the vb. means to forgive. The same vbs. 
in the passive (Ps. 89[88]:9; 2 Chr. 30:18 f.) and also hileos gignesthai (Deut. 21:8) 
mean to be propitious or gracious towards, and so to forgive (but not, according to 
Dodd, to be propitiated). exhilaskesthai in the middle with the acc. direct object and 
with a human subject means to appease, or placate (Gen. 32:20[21]; Prov. 16:14). 
exhilasma occurs only twice for koper, equivalent, compensation, equivalent of a life, 
ransom (1 Sam. 12:3; Ps. 49[48]:8). Dodd drew from all this the conclusion “that the 
LXX< translators did not regard kipper (when used as a religious term) as conveying 
the sense of propitiating the Deity, but the sense of performing an act whereby guilt 
or defilement is removed, and accordingly rendered it by hilaskesthai in this sense” 
(op. cit., 93). He went on to draw the further conclusion that this was the meaning 

that the NT writers assumed when they used this word group (op. cit., 93 ff.). 
(c) Dodd’s case has been subjected to minute criticism from various angles. An 
immediately apparent weakness is that Dodd limited his discussion to questions of 
grammar and equivalent translations in the LXX without looking at the wider con- 
text of ideas and motivation (cf. D. Hill, Greek Words and Hebrew Meanings: 
Studies in the Semantics of Soteriological Terms, Society for New Testament 
Studies Monograph Series 5, 1967, 24). Dodd did not inquire at all into the 
background of what the OT says about the character of Yahweh and man’s 
relationship with him. Even so, as Roger R. Nicole has pointed out, Dodd failed to 
take into account a large group of words which translate kipper and its cognates, e.g. 
aphaireo, take away (Isa. 27:9), antallagma, that which is given in exchange (Isa. | 
43:3). Nicole maintains that “‘in his first line of investigation Dodd’s conclusions are 
based on less than 40 per cent of the relevant evidence, and this in a case where the 
uniformity of the usage is a major factor in the argumentation” (“C. H. Dodd and 
the Doctrine of Propitiation’”, W7J 17, 1955, 129). In the light of his own detailed 
examination of the various translations of kipper in the LXX, Nicole claims that 
Dodd’s findings should be rewritten as follows: ‘““Where the LXX translators do not 
render kipper and its cognates by words of the hilaskesthai class, they render it by 
words which give the meaning ‘to sanctify’, ‘to forgive’, ‘to remove’, ‘to cover with 
pitch’, ‘to ransom’, ‘to contribute’, ‘to give’, ‘to veil’, ‘to anoint’, ‘the village’, ‘the 
| 153 


myrrh’, or they have failed to render it altogether. We should therefore expect to find 
that they regard the hilaskesthai class as conveying similar ideas” (ibid.; cf. Dodd, 
op. cit., 84, quoted above). The point of the observation is to draw attention to 
Dodd’s arbitrary selectivity in concentrating on one particular meaning to the exclu- 
sion of other attested meanings. Moreover, as D. Hill points out, the range of mean- 
ings which Dodd himself allows to this group of words (from ‘sanctify’ to ‘cancel’) is 
so wide that it cannot offer a precise guide to the meaning of the hilaskomai group 
(op. cit., 25 f.). Even where there is a single theme of meaning, the actual meaning 
must be determined by the way in which words are used in context.” | 

This last point has bearing on the debate concerning the etymology of kipper. The 
two main alternative meanings proposed for the root are “to cover” and “to wipe 
away’. But as Hill again points out, this debate is indecisive for determining the 
biblical uses of the word-group (op. cit. 30 f.). On the one hand, the meaning of 
words change in the course of time. The root meaning of a word is at best only a 
general guide. The more exact determination of meaning must depend on the way 
words are used in particular contexts (cf. J. Barr, The Semantics of Biblical 
Language, 1961, 107-60). On the other hand, the difference between the two 
Suggested meanings is not great, and both lend themselves to propitiatory and ex- 
piatory interpretations. 

kipper in the Heb. OT is normally translated by exhilaskomai. The latter vb. does 
not occur at all in the NT which prefers hilaskomai. Nevertheless, exhilaskomai is 
important, as it occurs 105 times (83 of which to translate kipper). It is the normal 
vb. used when OT writers speak of making atonement. Their usage falls into two 
main groups, according to whether the atonement is brought about by some cultic 
action (the majority of cases) or by some other non-cultic means. Dodd was inclined 
to dismiss instances like Gen. 32:20(21) and Prov. 16:14, where he admitted that the 
meaning was to appease or placate, since the usage here was not strictly religious and 
thus belonged to the non-cultic use (Dodd, op. cit., 92). But Hill (op. cit., 31) and 
Morris (op. cit., 161—67) argue that the non-cultic use is fundamental, since it enables 
us to ascertain the general, basic meaning of exhilaskomai (cf. also S. H. Langdon, 
ExpT 22, 1910-11, 323; J. Herrmann, TDNT III 302 f.). 

Morris examines the following passages in some detail, all of which contain 
exhilaskomai in a non-cultic sense: Exod. 30:12—16; Num. 31:50; Isa. 47:11 (where 
some form of payment averts wrath); Exod. 32:30 (where Moses offers his life to 
make atonement); 2 Sam. 21:1—14 (where the hanging of seven descendants of Saul 
reconciles the Gibeonites); Num. 35:33 (“You shall not thus pollute the land in which 
you live; for blood pollutes the land and no expiation can be made for the land, for 
the blood that is shed in it, except by the blood of him who shed it’); Deut. 32:41 ff. 
(Yahweh “avenges the blood of his servants, and takes vengeance on his adversaries, 
and makes kipper [LX X ekkathariei, will cleanse out] for the land of his people’’); 
Deut. 21:1—9 (the killing of a heifer to avert the guilt of innocent blood from a com- 
munity); Prov. 16:14 (a wise man will appease the wrath of a king); Isa. 27:9 
(forgiveness brought about by the destruction of idolatrous altars); Ezek. 16:63, cf. 
vv. 38, 42 (forgiveness through satisfaction); Pss. 65:3; 78:38; 79:9; Dan. 9:24; Jer. 
18:23 (“Forgive not their iniquity ... deal with them in the time of thine anger’’); 
Num. 25:1—18 (by offering up the lives of evil-doers the zealous priest makes atone- 
ment and averts divine wrath); 2 Chr. 30:18 and Isa. 6:7 (both passages concerned 



with the purging away of uncleanness). Morris concludes that in 7 of these passages 
atonement is made through offering a koper of life, and in 9 the koper is money, 
goods or a metaphorical price (op. cit., 166 f.). Clearly, some cases are less clear-cut 
than others, since not all of these passages explicitly refer to the person who is 
propitiated. However, in those cases where the propitiated party is mentioned, it is 
evident that the offence is not dealt with in an impersonal way as if the mere perfor- 
mance of an act is sufficient to bring about the desired consequences. It may be 
stated that those passages which can be construed in an expiatory sense can also be 
construed in a propitiatory sense. On the other hand, those passages which require a 
propitiatory sense cannot be reduced to a simple expiatory sense. 

Turning to the cultic use of kipper, Morris points out that the vb. acquired a 
technical meaning which completely overshadowed other meanings. Hence, in most 
places it means “to accomplish reconciliation between God and man’’, without in- 
dicating how that reconciliation is obtained (op. cit., 167). Num. 16:41—50 provides 
a link between the cultic and non-cultic uses. The means of averting Yahweh’s wrath 
is by Aaron’s making an offering of — incense (vv. 46 f.). Various passages speak of 
gifts in which there is an element of atonement (Num. 15:25: cf. 7:25; 31:1-54; 
Deut. 16:16; Jdg. 6:18 f.; Isa. 18:7; Zeph. 3:10). 1 Sam. 3:14 is an early cultic 
passage in which Yahweh’s personal enmity to the house of Ell is so great that “the 
iniquity of Eli’s house shall not be atoned [yitkapper] with sacrifice or offering for 
ever.” Lev. 5:16 refers to a guilt offering for an unwitting trespass: “He shall also 
make restitution for what he has done amiss in the holy thing, and shall add a fifth to 
it and give it to the priest; and the priest shall make atonement |y*’kapper| for him 
with the ram of the guilt offering, and he shall be forgiven [w°nislah 16]. Morris 
suggests that the extra fifth looks remarkably like a sort of koper, and that the same 
may be said for other examples of the guilt offering (op. cit., 169). Even in cases 
where restitution could not be paid to the offended party because of his death, the 
restitution plus one fifth still had to be paid to Yahweh (Num. 5:8). Although the 
prophets denounced popular ideas of sacrifice which assumed that Yahweh would be 
satisfied with a gift without a corresponding change of heart (Isa. 1:1 ff.; Mic. 
6:6 ff.), they did not put forward an alternative theory of sacrifice. 

Morris holds that the remaining cases of exhilaskomai which translate a vb. other 
than kipper, which have already been noted in discussing Dodd’s case, are also com- 
patible with the idea of propitiation. Indeed, as Dodd himself recognized, the element 
of propitiation is positively required by Zech. 7:2; 8:22; Mal. 1:9; cf. also Ps. 
106(105):30; Num. 25:11. 

The vb. hilaskomai which is used in the NT occurs only 11 times in the OT, 
always in the middle or passive and always with Yahweh as subject. In general, it 
means to forgive. But in 6 of these passages there is explicit mention of divine wrath. 
In view of this Morris claims that “it is manifestly impossible to maintain that the vb. 
has been emptied of its force” (op. cit., 158). Thus, in Exod. 32:14 it translates 
naham (in the niphal): “And the LorpD repented [wayyinnahem vHwH| of the evil 
which he thought to do to his people.”’ But it must be noted that vv. 11 f. refer to the 
wrath of Yahweh which is averted by the intercession of Moses. In Lam. 3:42 
hilaskomai translates salah which means to forgive: “We have transgressed and 
rebelled, and thou hast not forgiven.” But the forgiveness in question here is of the 
kind which involves the turning away of divine wrath. The same may be said of Dan. 



9:19 (Theodotion): “O Lord, forgive’; which may be compared with v. 16: “O Lord, 
according to all thy righteous acts, let thy anger and thy wrath turn away from thy 
city Jerusalem, thy holy hill; because for our sins, and for the iniquities of our 
fathers, Jerusalem and thy people have become a byword among all who are round 
about us.” The personal wrath of Yahweh is present in 2 Ki. 24:3 f.: “Surely this 
came upon Judah at the command of the LorD, to remove them out of his sight, for 
the sins of Manasseh, according to all that he had done, and also for the innocent 
blood that he had shed; for he filled Jerusalem with innocent blood, and the Lorp 
would not pardon.” The idea of forgiveness in Ps. 78(77):38 is practically identical 
with the averting of divine wrath: “Yet he, being compassionate, forgave their ini- 
quity, and did not destroy them; he restrained his anger often, and did not stir up all 
his wrath.” The same is true of Ps. 79(78):8: ““Do not remember against us the ini- 
quities of our forefathers; let thy compassion come speedily to meet us, for we are 
brought very low.” There is a clear link between the pardoning of guilt and Yahweh’s 
character in Ps. 25(24):11: “For thy name’s sake, O LorD, pardon my guilt, for it is 
great” (cf. vv. 16 ff.). In Ps. 65(64):3 the notion of forgiveness is uppermost, but the 
context makes it clear that it is no mere impersonal matter but something which con- 
cerns Yahweh personally: “When our transgressions prevail over us, thou dost 
forgive them.” Est. 13:17 (Addition C v. 10) is concerned with the forgiveness of the 
people under sentence of death. In 2 Ki. 5:18 the former — leper and convert to 
Yahwism, Naaman, asks for pardon for bowing down in the house of Rimmon, an 
action prohibited by the Second Commandment on the grounds that Yahweh is a 
jealous God (Exod. 20:5; Deut. 5:9): “In this matter may the LorD pardon your ser- 
vant: when my master goes into the house of Rimmon to worship there, leaning on 
my arm, and I bow myself in the house of Rimmon, when I bow myself in the house 
of Rimmon, the Lorp pardon your servant in this matter.” 

The noun hilasmos occurs 10 times in a variety of contexts. In Lev. 25:9 and 
Num. 5:8 it translates kippurim and may be translated as atonement. The former is 
concerned with the Day of Atonement and the latter with the ram of atonement, of- 
fered to Yahweh in restitution for wrong committed against a fellow Israelite. In Ps. 
130(129):4 and Dan. 9:9 (Theodotion) it translates s‘ihah, forgiveness. In Amos 
8:14 it translates ‘aSmdah, wrong doing, guilt. In Ezek. 44:27 it is the equivalent of 
hatta't, sin offering. There is no Heb. equivalent in 1 Chr. 28:20 and 2 Macc. 3:33, 
where it is applied to the sacrifice offered by Onias to deliver Heliodorus from further 
punishment. | 

The LXX uses hilasterion 22 times for the Heb. kapporet which may be rendered 
“propitiatory” (BDB, 498) or “mercy seat” (RSV). The older translation “cover”’’ (cf. 
RSV mg) has no justification in usage. It occurs in Exod. 25:17—22 (16-21); 31:7; 
35:12; 38:6, 8 f. (5, 7 f.); Lev. 16:2, 13 ff.; Num. 7:89). It designates the slab of > 
gold 24 cubits by 14 cubits placed on top of the ark of testimony (— Tent, Taber- 
nacle; — Temple). On it and as part of it were the two > cherubim, whose out- 
stretched wings came together and formed the throne of Yahweh. When the high > 
priest entered the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16), this holiest 
place had to be enveloped in a cloud of — incense. The — blood of the sin-offering of 
atonement was sprinkled on it and before it. In 1 Chr. 28:11 the temple proper, as 
distinct from the porch etc., was called the bet hakkapporet, “the room |lit. house] 
for the mercy seat” (RSV). In Ezek. 43:14, 17, 20 hilasterion stands for ’*zarah, a 



ledge surrounding Ezekiel’s altar. It occurs without Heb. equivalent in Amos 9:1, and 
also in 4 Macc. 17:22 where it may be an adj. qualifying the noun death or a noun in 
apposition: “they having as it were become a ransom [antipsychon| for our nation’s 
sin; and through the blood of these righteous men and the propitiation of their death 
[tou hilasteriou thanatou|, the divine Providence delivered [diesosen] Israel that 
before was evil entreated” (cf. also 2 Macc. 7:37; 4 Macc. 6:28). 

hileos occurs 35 times in the LXX particularly in the phrase hileos einai, be 
propitious, for Heb. salah, forgive. It features in the prayer of > Solomon at the 
dedication of the > temple (1 Ki. 8:30, 34, 36, 39, 50; 2 Chr. 6:21, 25, 27, 39; cf. 
also Num. 14:20; 2 Chr. 7:14; Jer. 5:1, 7; 50[27]:20; 31[38]:34; 36[43]:3). It ren- 
ders no less than 7 other Heb. expressions chiefly connected with forgiveness in Gen. 
43:23; Exod. 32:12; Num. 14:19; Deut. 21:8; 1 Sam. 14:45; 2 Sam. 20:20; 23:17; 1 
Chr. 11:19; and has no corresponding Heb. in 1 Macc. 2:21; 2 Macc. 2:7, 22; 7:37; 
10:26; 4 Macc. 6:28; 8:14; 9:24; 12:18. : 

In the intertestamental period human expressions of piety may have atoning 
power as well as cultic acts. This is anticipated by Prov. 16:6: “By loyalty and 
faithfulness iniquity is atoned for, and by the fear of the Lorp a man avoids evil.” 
According to Sir. 3:30, “A flaming fire doth quench water; so doth almsgiving atone 
for sin.” In later Judaism good deeds, the study of the Torah, suffering, and one’s 
own death may have atoning value (T. Yoma 5:6 ff.; cf. E. Lohse, Martyrer und 
Gottesknecht, 1963 ?, 35 ff.). The death of the martyrs has a special atoning worth, as 
may be seen in the quotation above from 4 Macc. 17:22 (cf. 2 Macc. 7:37; SB II 275 
ff.; Lohse, op. cit., 66 ff.). 

To sum up the discussion so far, it is clear that the authors of the Heb. OT and the 
LXX translators are far removed from the crude pagan idea of propitiating a 
Capricious and malevolent deity. On the other hand, the evidence that we have ex- 
amined does not suggest that these writers shared a common quasi-mechanistic view 
of life in which the effects of sin could be nullified by resorting to the appropriate rite 
as an antidote. There is a personal dimension which affects both the offending and 
the offended parties which means that, even where an offence has to be expiated, the 
action has to be taken because the personal relationship between the parties requires. 
it. What C. K. Barrett says of Paul’s teaching in Romans might also be applied to 
those passages in the OT concerning the expiation of man’s sin: “It would be wrong 
to neglect the fact that expiation has, as it were, the effect of propitiation: the sin that 
might have excited God’s wrath is expiated (at God’s will) and therefore no longer 
does so” (The Epistle to the Romans, BNTC, 1957, 78). 

(d) The element of propitiation is further supported by a closer examination of the 
significance of > blood in the OT. The view that — life is in the blood has already 
been noted (see above, oT 2 (c)). This has been taken by an influential body of 
theologians to mean that sacrifice is a way of releasing life. Thus Vincent Taylor 
writes: “The victim is slain in order that its life, in the form of blood, may be released, 
and its flesh is burnt in order that it may be transformed or etherialized; and in both 
cases the aim is to make it possible for life to be presented as an offering to the 
Deity” (Jesus and His Sacrifice, 1937, 54 f.). Similarly, E. L. Mascall writes: “The 
Slaying was merely an indispensable preliminary by which the life was set free to be 
offered” (Corpus Christi, 1955, 89; cf. F. C. N. Hicks, The Fullness of Sacrifice, 
1930). With Mascall, Hicks and other Catholic writers, this interpretation laid the 



OT foundation for a view of the eucharist which saw the sacrament as the means of 
communicating the life of Christ to the faithful, on whose behalf it was released in the 
sacrifice of Calvary and renewed in the eucharist. 

The chief grounds for adopting this interpretation of the OT lie in the way 
passages like Lev. 17:11 are understood: “For the life [Heb. nepes; LX X psyche] of 
the flesh is in the blood [Heb. dam; LXX haima]; and I have given it for you upon 
the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement, 
by reason of the life.”” This may be coupled with the prohibition in Lev. 17:14: “For 
the life of every creature is the blood of it [so Gk., Syr., cf. Vulg.; the Heb. reads: for 
the life of all flesh, its blood is in its life]; therefore I have said to the people of Israel, 
You shall not eat the blood of any creature, for the life of every creature is its blood; 
whoever eats it shall be cut off.” A similar prohibition is contained in Deut. 12:23: 
“Only be sure that you do not eat the blood; for the blood is the life, and you shall 
not eat the life with the flesh.” The same command is given to > Noah which is con- 
tained in the so-called ““Noachian decrees”: “Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, 
that is, its blood” (Gen. 9:4). The eating of flesh with blood in it is further prohibited 
in (e.g.) Lev. 3:17; 7:26 f.; 17:10, 12; 19:26; Deut. 12:16, 23;15:23. Various other 
passages link blood and life. Thus > David refused to drink the water brought to him 
from the well of > Bethlehem: “He poured it out to the LORD, and said, ‘Far be it 
from me, O Lorp, that I should do this. Shall I drink the blood of the men who went 
at the risk of their lives?”’ (2 Sam. 23:16f.). The taking of human life is also 
prohibited in the “Noachian decrees”: “For your lifeblood I will surely require a 
reckoning; of every beast I will require it and of man; of every man’s brother I will 
require the life of man” (Gen. 9:5). Blood is used as a synonym for life or soul by the 
Psalmist: “From oppression and violence he redeems their life [Heb. napSam; LXX 
psychas]; and precious is their blood in his sight” (Ps. 72[71]:14). 

The view represented by Taylor has, however, been strongly challenged by a num- 
ber of scholars (L. Morris, op. cit., 112—28; A. M. Stibbs, The Meaning of the Word 
“Blood” in Scripture, 1954’; J. Behm, haima, haimatekchysia, TDNT 1 172-77; 
J. A. Robinson, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians, 1904, 29; G. F. Moore, 
Encyclopaedia Biblica, 1899-1903, column 4221; C. Ryder Smith, The Bible Doc- 
trine of Salvation, 1946, 233; cf. also H. W. Wolff, Anthropology of the Old 
Testament, 1974, 60 ff., whose study of blood makes no reference to the theory of 
the shedding of blood as the release of life). On closer examination it becomes clear 
that “blood” in many of the passages quoted means death rather than life. So long as 
the bleod circulates in the animal or human being, there is life. When it no longer cir- 
culates, death ensues. This, of course, is prior to the modern theory of the circulation 
of the blood, discovered by William Harvey in the seventeenth century. Rather, it 
was recognized that, while blood flowed, there was life. Behind the prohibition of 
eating flesh with blood in it, there may also have been sound hygienic reasons. Gen. 
9:5 (like Gen. 42:22) is concerned with the destruction of life. Alongside Ps. 
72(71]:14 may be set Ps. 116:15: “Precious in the sight of the Lorp is the death of 
his saints.” 

Similarly, David’s question about drinking the blood of his brave followers can 
only be a metaphorical one in which blood signifies life surrendered in death. Of the 
362 instances of the word dam, blood, in the Heb. OT, Leon Morris claims that no 
less than 203 associate blood with violent death (op. cit., 112). Among these are 



some 165 general instances like ‘““Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his 
blood be shed” (Gen. 9:6), “the avenger of blood” (Num. 35:19), “he who avenges 
blood is mindful of them” (Ps. 9:12). The expression “innocent blood” occurs 21 
times (e.g. Deut. 19:10, 13; 21:8 f.; cf. 27:25; 1 Sam. 19:5; 1 Ki. 2:31; Prov. 6:17; 
Isa. 59:7). The idea of one’s blood being upon oneself is found 12 times (e.g. Lev. 
20:9, 11 ff., 16, 27; 2 Sam. 16:8; 1 Ki. 2:32 ff.). On blood-guiltiness see Gen. 9:4 ff.; 
Lev. 17:4; Deut. 19:10; Prov. 1:18; 28:17; Isa. 1:15; Hos. 1:4: 4:2: Nah. 3:1; Ezek. 
22:2; 24:6, 9. There are some 5 references to the death of animals (e.g. Lev. 17:3 f.) 
in addition to 103 references to sacrificial blood (e.g. Exod. 23:18). In passages like 
Gen. 37:26; 1 Ki. 2:5; Ps. 58[57]:10, blood clearly signifies death. 

Taken in isolation, it is possible to construe certain passages which deal with 
atonement (e.g. Exod. 30:10; Lev. 16:27; 17:11) as offering the life of the victim. But 
it is equally possible to understand them as offering the death of the victim whose life 
has been taken away. However, in Num. 35:33 which deals with the execution of a 
murderer, there can be no question of the presentation of his life before God. And in 
various passages where atonement is effected by some means other than the cultus it 
is the termination of life which brings about the atonement. Thus Moses sought 
atonement for the sin of the people by asking Yahweh to blot him out of the book 
which he had written (Exod. 32:30 ff.). Phinehas made atonement by slaying Zimri 
and Cozbi (Num. 25:13). David made atonement by delivering seven descendants of 
Saul to be hanged by the Gibeonites (2 Sam. 21:3 f.). In the case of a murder com- 
mitted by an unknown person atonement is made by breaking the neck of a heifer 
(Deut. 21:1—9). 

In the case of sacrifice within the cultus, atonement is generally effected not simply 
by offering the blood but by the offering of the whole sacrifice (Ezek. 45:17; for the 
various types of offering — Sacrifice). Moreover, different parts of the animal were 
associated with atonement: e.g. the head (Lev. 1:4; cf. Yoma 3:8; 4:2; 6:2); the burn- 
ing of the fat (Lev. 4:26; cf. 3:16 f.; Isa. 1:11; 34:6; 2 Sam. 1:22). In some cases 
where atonement is spoken of, the blood appears to be excluded altogether. Thus 
Aaron and his sons were instructed to “eat those things with which atonement was 
made” (Exod. 29:33). Similarly, Moses rebuked the sons of Aaron by asking: “Why 
have you not eaten the sin offering in the place of the sanctuary, since it is a thing 
most holy and has been given to you that you may bear the iniquity of the congrega- 
tion, to make atonement for them before the Lorp? Behold, its blood was not 
brought into the inner part of the sanctuary. You certainly ought to have eaten it in 
the sanctuary, as I commanded” (Lev. 10:17 f.). In other places atonement is con- 
nected with ceremonies like the > pouring of — oil on the head of a cleansed — leper 
(Lev. 14:18, 29), the offering of —- incense (Num. 16:46), and the scapegoat (Lev. 
16:10). In the Passover ritual blood is the means of averting destruction. “The blood 
shall be a sign for you, upon the houses where you are; and when I see the blood, I 
will pass over you, and no plague shall fall upon you to destroy you, when I smite the 
land of Egypt” (Exod. 12:13). Morris comments: “The obvious symbolism is that a 
death has taken place, and this death substitutes for the death of the firstborn” (op. 
cit., 121). 

Finally, attention may be drawn to certain prophetic passages in which the 
slaughter of nations is compared with sacrifice. Thus Jeremiah spoke of the destruc- 
tion of Egypt and her allies: “The sword shall devour and be sated, and drink its fill 



of their blood. For the LorD God of hosts holds a sacrifice in the north country by 
the river Euphrates” (Jer. 46:10b). In similar vein Zephaniah also spoke of the day of 
the Lord: “Be silent before the LorD God! For the day of the Lorp is at hand; the 
LorD has prepared a sacrifice and consecrated his guests. And on the day of the 
Lorp’s sacrifice — ‘I will punish the officials and the king’s sons and all who array 
themselves in foreign attire’”’.(Zeph. 1:7 f.). Here too there can be no question of 
sacrifice being a means of releasing life; the essential idea is the taking away of life in 
death. | 

In view of these considerations, the conclusion may be drawn that, where blood is 
mentioned in the OT, the thought that is uppermost is the shedding of blood (whether 
literally or in some other way of terminating life), and where blood is linked with 
sacrifice or atonement the thought is that of the death of the victim rather than the 
release of his life. As in our study of kipper and the hilaskomai word-group, there lies 
in the background the thought that such acts are not arbitrary or unethical. In the 
last analysis they are required because Yahweh is who he is. The biblical writers see 
no tension with righteousness. at this point. Indeed, these things are seen as part and 
parcel of the moral structure of life which in turn derives from Yahweh. 

. C. Brown 

4. The ideas of atonement acquired a particular form in the Qumran community. 
The community on the one hand held firmly to the OT view that God is the subject 
of atonement (e.g. 1QH 4:37; 1QS 11:1-14; CD 4:6 ff.; 20:34). At the same time, 
however, there was the idea that the Essene community as the true > Israel makes 
atonement for the whole land (/‘kapper b*ad ha-’ares) by its obedience to the Torah 
(1QS 8:6, 10; cf. 2:8; 5:6; 8:3; 1QSa 1:3; Lev. 18:27 f.; Num. 35:33; Joel 
3:17[4:17]; Jub. 50:5; Sib. 5:264; Syr. Bar. 66:2; see further A. R. C. Leaney, The 
Rule of Qumran and Its Meaning, 1966, 217). 

NT In view of the relatively frequent and quite familiar occurrence of cultic terms in 

the LXX, it comes as a surprise to find how rarely the NT makes use of these 
words. Each of the four terms is used only twice, so that the whole group of words 
appears only 8 times in the NT (of which 3 are in Heb.). 

1. (a) hileos appears in Matt. 16:22 as a negative exclamation in Peter’s rebuke of 
Jesus when Jesus told him of his impending death at Jerusalem: “God forbid, Lord! 
This shall never happen to you.” The Gk. is hileos soi, kyrie (lit. “gracious to you, 
Lord”). The words eie ho theos (“may God be”) are understood. For biblical 
parallels see Gen. 43:23; 2 Sam. 20:20; 1 Chr. 11:19 (cf. also hileos soi, Alypi “May 
[Serapis] help you”, quoted by Arndt, 376; cf. Funk § 128, 5; Moulton-Milligan, 
303). : 

(b) Heb. 8:12 comes at the end of a quotation from Jer. 31:31—34: “for I will be 
merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more.” It concludes 
an argument that the new covenant has been inaugurated by Christ, that this is the 
covenant foretold by Jeremiah, and therefore that, “In speaking of a new covenant he 
treats the first as obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready 
to vanish away” (Heb. 8:12). 

2. (a) Strikingly enough, exhilaskomai which is the regular vb. in the LXX does 
not occur in the NT at all. The aor. passive of hilaskomai is used in Lk. 18:13 in the 
tax collector’s prayer in the temple: ““God, be merciful to me a sinner! [ho theos, 



hilastheti moi to hamartolo].” The thought is similar to that of Ps. 79(78):9 LXX: 
“and forgive our sins for thy name’s sake [kai hilastheti tais hamartiais hemon 
heneka tou onomatos sou|.” The same vb. is used in both cases. It can be rendered as 
both “be propitious” and “be merciful’ (Moulton-Milligan, 303; Arndt, 376). 
Whether one sees here overtones of the need for propitiation, as in cl. Gk., or 
whether one sees a more general cry for mercy, depends on the weight one gives to 
Dodd’s argument that the passive meaning of “be propitiated” has been evaporated 
in the LXX (op. cit., 93 f.; cf. above oT 3 (b)). However, it must be pointed out that 
the tax collector certainly felt the need for a forgiveness that only God himself could 
bestow. Otherwise, he would not have uttered the prayer. 

Jesus’ comment is contained in Lk. 18:14: “I tell you, this man went down to his 
house justified |dedikaiomenos| rather than the other; for every one who exalts him- 
self will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted.” On justification > 
Righteousness, art. dikaiosyne. Commenting on the parable, E. E. Ellis sees the > 
Pharisee’s attitude as not untypical of attitudes within Judaism (The Gospel of Luke, 
New Century Bible, 1966, 215). In the Talmud one rabbi was said to be confident 
that his righteousness was sufficient to exempt his whole generation from judgment. 
If the saved numbered only “a hundred, I and my son are among them; and if only 
two, they are I and my son” (Suk. 45b). In terms of performing those acts which 
were currently understood as comprising righteousness, Paul declared himself “as to 
the righteousness under the law, blameless” (Phil. 3:6). Even at Qumran, amidst the 
profound consciousness that the community was the elect and righteous Sons of 
Light, there was a sense that righteousness was a gift of God. “As for me, my 
justification is with God. In His Hand are the perfection of my way and the up- 
rightness of my heart. He will wipe out my transgression through His 
righteousness.... From the source of His righteousness is my justification” (1QS 
11:2 f., 5). Thus justification here might be said to be by grace alone, but it was not, 
as with Paul, by faith related to the saving act of Christ (Rom. 3:20—27) or related to 
the law (Rom. 8:4; cf. 7:1-25; Gal. 3:10 ff.). The development of these aspects of 
reconciliation and justification belong to the post-Pentecost church. 

The parable in Lk. 18 focuses on two aspects: on man’s side what matters is a 
heartfelt turning to God which simply casts oneself on God’s mercy; on God’s side 
human self-righteousness is of no avail, but God has mercy on the ungodly who turn 
to him for mercy. The final statement about > humility and exaltation (— Height, 
art. hypsoo) is regarded by some as possibly an originally independent saying (Ellis, 
op. cit., 214). It does, however, fit the context and train of thought remarkably well. 
For it picks up OT teaching about God, righteousness and humility (e.g. Prov. 3:34; 
Isa. 55:15; 58:3 ff.; cf. also 1 Pet. 5:5 f.). It says in effect to those to whom the 
parable was addressed (“who trusted in themselves that they were righteous and 
despised others”, Lk. 18:9), that this teaching is nothing new. If they (and the 
Pharisee in the parable) had really understood the Scriptures, they would have un- 
derstood this truth about God and man. 

(b) Heb. 2:17 takes up the cultic ritual of the Day of Atonement: “Therefore he 
had to be made like his brethren in every respect, so that he might become a merciful 
and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make expiation for the sins of the 
people leis to hilaskesthai tas hamartias tou laou|’’ (cf. Lev. 16:14 ff.). The RSV 
here follows Dodd’s line of interpretation (see above, oT 3 (b)). “Christ is represented 



as performing an act whereby men are delivered from the guilt of their sin, not 
whereby God is propitiated” (C. H. Dodd, op. cit., 94). Jesus is portrayed as the 
faithful high priest (cf. 1 Sam. 2:35) who atones for the > sins of the people. The 
death and exaltation of Jesus are interpreted in terms of the annual Day of Atone- 
ment ritual which is seen as a type of Jesus’ reconciling work and which is thus ren- 
dered obsolete by the fulfilment which comes with Jesus. 

Jesus stands in the service of God. In the phrase “fa merciful and faithful high 
priest in the service of God [eleemon ... kai pistos archiereus ta pros ton theon)” the 
fa is an acc. of respect (Funk § 160). This has been taken to imply that God is not 
the recipient of the reconciliation. Rather, Jesus is appointed and authorized by God 
“to fulfil that which neither the propitiatory acts of the OT nor those of other 
religions have been able to accomplish” (O. Michel, Der Brief an die Hebraer, KEK 
13, 1966 7, 169). Comparison with cultic atonement exhibits the radical nature of the 
sacrifice of Jesus’ life for the sin of others (cf. Heb. 7:27; 9:12, 26; 10:12). The out- 
come of Jesus’ atonement (hilaskesthai) is the wiping out of the guilt of sins 
(hamartias) and the offer of > forgiveness to the new people of God. Clearly, this is 
an action by God through his high priest Jesus for the salvation of men. But while 
there is no thought of appeasement of an angry deity in the pagan sense, and God is 
not said explicitly to be the recipient of the hilaskesthai, it may be asked whether 
Dodd’s conclusion is not too simplistic. For whether we look at it against the wider 
background of personal relations with Yahweh in the OT or the more specific 
background of the Day of Atonement ritual (see above, oT 3 (c)), the reason why 
guilt has to be expiated lies in the character of God himself. The Day of Atonement » 
ritual is required not because of some mechanistic view of the universe which re- 
quires the appropriate ritual as an antidote to nullify the effects of sin. It is because 
God himself is who he is and what he is. He is both the provider and the recipient of 
the reconciliation. 

3. The noun hilasmos occurs only in 1 Jn. “And he is the expiation for our sins 
[hilasmos ... peri ton hamartion hemon\], and not for ours only but also for the sins 
of the whole world” (1 Jn. 2:2 RSV). “In this is love, not that we loved God but that 
he loved us and sent his Son to be the expiation for our sins [hilasmon peri ton 
hamartion hemon|” (1 Jn. 4:10 RSV). The decision whether to translate hilasmos by 
“expiation” or “propitiation’” must be decided against the background of the con- 
siderations already discussed (see above, oT 3 (b) and (c)). However, it must be said 
that, as with other passages in the OT and NT concerning reconciliation, it is not a 
matter of applying some impersonal antidote. The question at issue is our personal 
relationship with God, and that which hinders this relationship needs to be dealt with 
for God’s part just as much as for ours (cf. 1 Jn. 1:5-10; 4:7 ff., 13-21). 

1 Jn. 2:2 and 4:10 are parallel statements to 1 Jn. 2:1 and 1 Jn. 4:9: “My little 
children, I am writing this to you so that you may not sin; but if any one does sin, we 
have an advocate with the Father [parakleton ... pros ton patera|, Jesus Christ the 
righteous”; “In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his 
only Son into the world, so that we might live through him.” In view of this 
parallelism and the fact that cultic language is not in general characteristic of 1 Jn., it 
has been suggested that 1 Jn. 2:2 and 4:10 were later additions due to the redactional 
influence of the community (cf. R. Bultmann, The Johannine Epistles, Hermeneia, 
1973, 23, 68). But in fact, words of the hilaskomai word-ground fit in naturally with 


the terminology of blood, cleansing and sin (1 Jn. 1:7 ff.) and would come naturally 
to anyone familiar with this area of the thought-world of the LXX. | 

In 1 Jn. 2:1 Jesus is described by use of the personal term — advocate (parakletos). 
But now, as B. F. Westcott pointed out, he is not said to be the propitiator but the 
propitiation (The Epistles of St John, 18923, 44). This is parallel to him being “our 
life” (Col. 3:4), “our wisdom, our righteousness and sanctification and redemption” 
(1 Cor. 1:30). He does not simply guide, teach, quicken; he is “the way, the truth, 
and the life” (Jn. 14:6). The action is clearly linked with his death: “But if we walk in 
the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of 
Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin” (1 Jn. 1:7). Christ’s death is the ground on 
which we may be cleansed, when we confess our sins: “If we confess our sins, he is 
faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 
Jn. 1:9). “The hilasmos is not one-sidedly linked with the single achievement of the 
death, but with the total person and work of Jesus, of which His death 1s, of course, 
an indissoluble part, 5:6; cf. 3:16; 1:7” (F. Buichsel, TDNT III 318). Jn. does not set 
out the need for a hilasmos. For him it is self-evident in the light of the character of 
God and the coming — judgment (1 Jn. 4:17). But once again atonement 1s not regar- 
ded as something that man does to God, but rather as the expression of God’s love to 
men (1 Jn. 4:10). 

4, (a) In the description of the sanctuary in the > tent in Heb. 9:1—5 hilasterion 
means mercy seat: “above it were the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy 
seat” (Heb. 9:5a; cf. Exod. 25:18—22; 37:7 ff. LX X; see above, oT 3 (c)). 

(b) The interpretation of Rom. 3:25 has been the subject of much discussion. It 
stands at the centre of Paul’s statement of God’s — righteousness in the face of man’s 
sin. The Gentile stands condemned apart from the law (Rom. 1:18—32; cf. 2:12) and 
the Jew is condemned by the law (Rom. 2:1—3:20). “But now the righteousness of 
God has been manifested apart from the law, although the law and the prophets bear 
witness to it, the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who 
believe. For there is no distinction; since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of 
God, they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in 
Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as an expiation by his blood, to be received by 
faith [hon proetheto ho theos hilasterion dia pisteos|. This was to show God’s 
righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins; it 
was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies him 
who has faith in Jesus” (Rom. 3:21—26). 

E. Kasemann sees Rom. 3:25 as a quotation taken up by Paul from Jewish Chris- 
tian sources to which Paul has added his characteristic emphasis on faith in the 

words dia pisteos (“Zum Verstandnis von Romer 3, 24—26”, ZNW 43, 1950-51, 
' 150 ff.; reprinted in Exegetische Versuche und Besinnungen, I, 1968°, 96 ff.; cf. also 
R. Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, 1, 1952, 46 f.). 

Several older exegetes connect the hilasterion here with the mercy seat, as in Heb. 
9:5 (see above, 4 (a)). Thus, F. Biichsel, who points out that Paul’s writings are 
saturated with allusions to the LXX, writes: “The indisputable centre of the earlier 
expiations of the Law is the Day of Atonement, when the hilasterion, or kapporet, 
must be sprinkled with blood to mediate the remission of all sins. Paul obviously 
assumes that the church to which he writes is acquainted with the Mosaic Law, 7:1. 
Hence it is natural that he should depict Jesus in this context as a higher kapporet 



which is efficacious through faith rather than through purely external observance” 
(TDNT III 321; cf. Rom. 2:28; 1 Cor. 3:6). Similarly, T. W. Manson interpreted 
hilasterion against the background of the Day of Atonement rites and took it to 
mean either “an expiatory place or object”, or more probably in the context of 
Jewish-Christian usage “the place where God shows mercy to man” (“HILASTERION ”’, 
JTS 46, 1945, 1-10). 

This attractive interpretation has, however, failed to find general assent. Among 
those who have contested it is E. Lohse, Martyrer und Gottesknecht. Unter- 
suchungen zur urchristlichen Verkundigung vom Suhntod Jesu Christi, FRLANT 
46, 1955, 19632, 151 f.). Leon Morris has also questioned it on the following 
grounds (“The Meaning of hilasterion in Rom. iii. 25”, NTS 2, 1955-56, 33-43). 
When hilasterion means mercy seat it always has the definite article (as in Heb. 9:5). 
The only exception is Exod. 25:17, where epithema removes it from the general to 
the particular. Not all the instances of hilasterion which Manson regards as referring 
to places are certain: they also refer to the propitiatory nature and purpose of the ob- 
ject. Generally speaking, Rom. does not move in the sphere of Levitical symbolism 
(in the way that, e.g., Heb. does). The question has to be asked how readily the 
readers of the Jewish Christian community at Rome would have grasped the 
significance of hilasterion as a single unexplained reference to the tabernacle fur- 
nishings. Manson regarded Rom. 1-3 as an “elaborate confession of sin for all 
mankind”. This could be compared with Aaron’s confession of the iniquities of Israel 
over the live goat on the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16:21) but for the fact that these 
chapters are not a confession of sin to God but a demonstration of God’s condemna- 
tion of sin before men. Morris regards it as harsh to make Christ, at one and the 
same time, the priest, victim and place of sprinkling. On the other hand, this latter 
point is not an insuperable objection, for Paul evidently regards Jesus Christ as the 
one who made the offering, the victim whose blood actually does take away sins, and 
therefore he himself was the locus in which all this was effected. 

An alternative model for Paul’s thought might be 4 Macc. 17:22 (quoted above, 
OT 3 (c)). H. Rashdall went so far as to think it “highly probable” that “this was the 
source of St. Paul’s thought and expression” (The Idea of Atonement in Christian 
Theology, 1919, 132). Leon Morris is more cautious and prefers to think of a com- 
munity of thought to which both Paul and 4 Macc. belong. Among the ideas com- 
mon to both passages are the following which are listed by D. Hill (op. cit., 42): (1) 
Both contexts speak of the active wrath of God; (2) Both refer to the shedding of 
blood and the surrender of life; (3) The death in both cases deals with sin; (4) In both 
cases death brings about deliverance, although with Paul it is not political but moral 
and theological; (5) In both passages the death is vicarious; (6) In both places it is 
God who provides the means of atonement. 

Hill goes on to suggest that Paul was directly influenced by. 4 Macc. (op. cit., 
43—46). He follows M. Hadas in dating 4 Macc. in the middle or end of the reign of 
Caligula (A.D. 37-41) (The Third and Fourth Books of Maccabees, 1953). Paul 
probably wrote Rom. during his three-month stay in Greece mentioned at Acts 20:2 
f. some time between late A.D. 55 and early 59. He therefore regards it as 
chronologically probable that 4 Macc. was written before Rom. Moreover, he does 
not think that the Alexandrian origin of 4 Macc. and its use of Gk. philosophical 
ideas militate against the theory that Paul knew the work and was influenced by it. 



The work itself celebrates the glory and worth of martyrdom, with its emphasis on 
Supreme obedience to the demands of God, its atoning worth, and the merit which 
avails for others. Similar ideas were current in Judaism (Ass.Mos.; Pss.Sol. 10:2; 
Test.Ben. 3:8; cf. W. H. C. Frend, Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church, 
1965, 31-68; W. D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism, 1955 2, 265-73; H. J. 
Schoeps, Paul: The Theology of the Apostle in the Light of Jewish Religious History, 
1961, 128—33; and E. Lohse, op. cit.). There are clear traces of a martyr-theology in 
Paul (Rom. 5:13—18; Phil. 2:8). Moreover, Hill thinks it not too fanciful to suggest 
that Paul’s writing of Rom. coincided with the Feast of the Dedication (Hanukkah) 
which began on 25 Chisleu and which was a winter festival. The feast com- 
memorated the rededication of the temple in 165 B.C. This point has particular 
significance if 4 Macc. was or contained “‘a Memorial Address” composed for the 
feast (cf. B. W. Bacon, “The Festival of Lives given for the Nation in Jewish and 
Christian Faith”, Hibbert Journal 15, 1917, 256—78). | 

Hill admits that a good deal of this is an undemonstrable hypothesis. But the point 
must be stressed that, if Paul has 4 Macc. in mind in writing Rom. 3, he was not say- 
ing that Jesus was just one of a long line of Jewish martyrs whose deaths had atoning 
value. Rather, his stress on the uniqueness of Christ’s death and efficacy make it 
clear that the deaths of the Jewish martyrs do not possess the atoning value ascribed 
to them. This point is reinforced by Rom. 3:25b which declares that God had passed 
over former sins, i.e. he had not punished them, but that now he shows his 
righteousness in visiting sin and justifying those who have faith in Jesus (v. 26; > 
Patience, art. anechomai NT 2; cf. M. Black, Romans, New Century Bible, 1973, 70; 
C. E. B. Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, ICC, I, 1975, 211 ff.). 

If the objection be made that to think of hilasterion in Rom. 3:35 in terms of the 
mercy seat involves an abrupt introduction of the idea without explanatory reference 
to the context, the same objection could be made to linking it to the thought-world of 
4 Macc. And yet the word and its associated ideas are common factors in all three 
contexts. Must we choose between them? It might seem that it would make Paul’s 
thought impossibly complicated, if we suggest that Paul was thinking of both the 
Day of Atonement with all its tabernacle symbolism and the Jewish tradition of the 
atoning death of the martyrs. But to put the matter this way might be to put it the 
wrong way round. There are a number of common factors in the Day of Atonement 
ritual and the Jewish beliefs: the need for atonement, that this is brought about by 
death, and that of an innocent victim, that this benefits the people. Such beliefs were 
not exclusively associated with either the Day of Atonement or the death of the mar- 
tyrs. It may well be that Paul deliberately chose a term which was common to both 
to show that Christ’s death is the ultimately valid means of atonement by which both 
the OT rites and contemporary Jewish beliefs about the deaths of the martyrs were 
once and for all superseded. 

If this is so, it might well explain the grammatical problems posed by supposing 
that Paul was drawing on either context; i.e. his anarthrous use of hilasterion, 
whereas it normally has the definite article when it means mercy seat; the fact that 
hilasteriou in the best reading of 4 Macc. 17:22 appears to be adjectival. Thus Paul 
is using the word in a way which corresponds grammatically to neither set of 
passages exactly; but the substance of the idea is common to both. 

At the same time Paul emphasizes once more the importance of — faith in the 



words “by faith [dia pisteos]”. The words “‘by his blood [en to autou haimati]” recall 
the Last Supper, the tradition of the > Lord’s Supper (Matt. 26:28 par. Mk. 14:24, 
Lk. 22:20; 1 Cor. 10:16; 11:25), the primitive > proclamation of the kerygma (1 
Cor. 15:3), and the references to blood elsewhere in NT teaching (Rom. 5:9; Acts 
20:28; Eph. 1:7; 2:13; Col. 1:20; Heb. 9:11 ff.; 10:19, 29; 13:12, 20; 1 Pet. 1:2, 19; 
1 Jn. 1:7; 5:6; Rev. 1:5; 5:9; 7:14; 12:11 (cf. C. E. B. Cranfield, The Epistle to the 
Romans, ICC, I, 1975, 210 f.). It re-establishes the broken covenant through God’s 
covenant faithfulness, his dikaiosyne, > righteousness (cf. E. Kasemann, op. cit., 99; 
and “The Saving Significance of the Death of Jesus in Paul”, Perspectives on Paul, 

1971, 32-59). | 
| H.-G. Link, C. Brown 

KataAAacow (katallasso), reconcile; katadAayy (katallage), 

reconciliation; dzaAAdoow (apallasso), set free, release; 
dlaAAdooouat (diallassomai), become reconciled; dxoxataAAdoow (apokatallasso), 
reconcile; uetaAAdoow (metallasso), to exchange; avradAayya (antallagma), what is 
given or taken in exchange. 

CL katallasso is a compound of allasso, to alter, exchange (derived from allos, 
another; > Other). Its original meaning is to change, exchange, etc.; transferred, 
it means to reconcile (Hdt. onwards; e.g. Hdt. 5, 95: 7, 145). The corresponding 
noun is katallage, reconciliation (Aesch., Sept. 767; Dem. 1, 4). Other compounds of 
allasso found in the NT are: apallasso, set free, release; diallasso, change (someone’s 
mind), reconcile (found in passive); metallasso, change, exchange; apokatallasso 
(only in Christian literature), to reconcile. From the same root is derived the noun 
antallagma, what is given in exchange, price of purchase (e.g. Eur., Orestes 1157). 
katallasso (like diallasso, and katallage, with its corresponding meaning) generally 
denotes in classical Gk. the restoration of the original understanding between people 
after hostility or displeasure (Xen., Anab. 1, 6, 1: Eur., Helena 1235; Aristotle, 
Oeconomica 1348b, 9). katallasso is rarely found in the sense of reconciliation in a 
religious setting (it occurs once in Soph., Ajax 744). It is not a term that can be used 
of propitiatory rites: in general the thought of a personal relationship to God is far 
removed from Gk. thought, as is also any forensic concept of a relationship with 

oT The words of this group are rare in the LXX. In the canonical books they appear 

in their original sense, or in one closely associated therewith. Katallasso is found 
only at Jer. 48(31):39, for hatadh, to be shattered, dismayed; and without Heb. 
equivalent at 2 Macc. 1:5; 7:33; 8:29; katallage only at Isa. 9:4(5) where it deviates 
from the Heb. text and is hard to understand, and at 2 Macc. 5:20. diallasso stands 
for various vbs. in Job (12:20, 24, stir hiph., to remove; parar hiph. break, frustrate, 
5:20; similarly apallasso for various vbs. in 9:34; 5:12, to destroy; cf. 7:15; 9:12; 
10:19; 27:5; 34:5). See also Exod. 19:22; 1 Sam. 14:29; 22:1; Jer. 32(39):31; 3 
Macc. 6:30; 4 Macc. 9:16. antallagma means price (m’hir, 1 Ki. 21(20):2; Job 
28:15; Jer. 15:13); a change (h*lipdh, Ps. 55[54]:19); ransom price (koper, Amos 
5:12); exchange (t°miurdh, Ruth 4:7). There is no corresponding Heb. in Ps. 



89(88):57; Sir. 6:15; 26:14; 44:17. Later rabbinic usage is anticipated in 1 Sam. 
29:4, where diallassomai deviates from its original sense to mean to make oneself ac- 
ceptable. In translating the language of atonement taken from the technical priestly 
vocabulary, the LXX prefers similar cultic terms like ekkathairo, purify (— Pure, 
art. katharos), frequently exhilaskomai, atone, expiate, or propitiate (— hilaskomai 
for atonement and reconciliation in the OT). katallasso and its derivatives are not 
found at all in cultic and priestly contexts. 

2. Judaism has a mood of repentance all its own (cf. the large number of peniten- 
tial prayers). Confession of sins and repentance are means by which reconciliation 
with God is sought, i.e. the restoration of his favour. Thus katallasso appears with 
reference to God in 2 Macc. 1:5; 7:33; 8:29. Often the OT proclamation of the grace 
of God is here foreshortened (cf. e.g. Ps. 62[61]:12 with Prov. 24:12; Sir. 16:12). 
When the fulfilment of the — law becomes a means to the end of achieving > 
righteousness before God, the thought of reconciliation can find itself in close prox- 
imity with that of reward. katallasso and cognates are not unfamiliar, but are not 
very frequently found. 

NT In the NT katallasso occurs only in the sense of to reconcile, or (passive) to be 
reconciled. It is used of the reconciliation of men with one another (1 Cor. 7:11; 
in the same sense diallassomai in Matt. 5:24), and of their relationship with God 
(only in Paul: Rom. 5:10; 2 Cor. 5:18—20; in Col. 1:20, 22 and Eph. 2:16 
apokatallasso in the same sense). katallage is also found in the sense of reconciliation 
(only in Paul: Rom. 5:11; 11:15; 2 Cor. 5:18, 19). 
apallasso occurs in the act., meaning to free (Heb. 2:15), and in the passive or 
middle to get free, be released, settle with (Lk. 12:58; Acts 19:12). Similarly we find 
in their original sense metallasso (Rom. 1:25, 26) and the simple form allasso (Acts 
6:14; Gal. 4:20; Heb. 1:12; Rom. 1:23; on 1 Cor. 15:51 f. — Resurrection, art. 
anastasis). antallagma, ransom money, is found only at Mk. 8:37 par. Matt. 16:26. 
1. katallasso and katallage occur only rarely in the NT even in Paul who is the 
sole NT writer to use these terms. Nevertheless, these words are among the basic 
concepts of Pauline theology. They serve to give greater theological and 
christological precision to Christ and his work than such soteriological concepts 
generally found in the Synoptic Gospels and Acts like > forgiveness (Gk. aphiemi). 
2. The subject of the reconciliation is God (2 Cor. 5:18 f.). This is the theological 
novelty in comparison with non-Christian religious thought, which knows the deity 
only as the object of the reconciling work of man. At the same time it is consistent 
with the OT message of God as the “merciful” arid “gracious” one, who reveals 
“steadfast love” and “faithfulness” as belonging to his very being (Exod. 34:6 f.; cf. 
Ps. 103[102]:8 ff.), and who promises forgiveness and restoration of the — covenant 
as his sovereign work (Isa. 43:25; 54:7 ff.; Jer. 31:31 ff.). The katallage created by 
God is thus a completed act which precedes all human action. “For if while we were 
enemies we were reconciled [katellagemen| to God by the death of his Son, much 
more now that we are reconciled [katallagentes]|, shall we be saved by his life” (Rom. 
5:10). Man was thus an > enemy before the reconciliation took place. A fortiori the 
resurrection of Jesus is the guarantee of salvation. Human action, including even 
repentance and confession of sins, is not a work of man to bring about and initiate 
reconciliation, to which God reacts. Rather is it the reaction of man, and as such 



necessary and demanded. That this is the state of affairs is confirmed further by 
Paul’s characteristic order of indicative followed by imperative, which starts out 
from the act of God as the matter of primary importance, the good news which must 
be proclaimed as already complete. It is the ground of the believer’s > joy in God: 
“Not only so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through 
whom we have now received our reconciliation [ten katallagen|” (Rom. 5:11). 

3. The reconciliation has been effected by the work of Christ. As we have already 
seen, Rom. 5:10 f. speak of its connexion with his death and with his resurrection. As 
the effect of this work, reconciliation is an expression of the new situation which this 
work has brought about, and which Paul usually indicates in terms like dikaioo, 
justify, dikaiosyne, righteousness, which are judicial terms (— Righteousness). The 
fact that katallasso and katallage can be used in parallel with these terms (cf. Rom. 
5:9 with 5:10; and 2 Cor. 5:19 with Rom. 4:3 ff.) indicates the central place that they 
have in the preaching and theology of Paul. The katallage is the expression of the 
transformation of the relationship (of enmity) between God and man, which has been 
brought about by the new > Adam (Rom. 5:12 ff.), Jesus Christ. 

Perhaps the central theme of Rom. is the place of the Jewish nation in the divine 
economy of salvation. This explains why Paul is anxious to demonstrate from the 
OT scriptures that salvation has always been by grace through faith (cf. chs. 3 f.) and 
to show that the réle of the — law was never intended to be a means of self-salvation 
(cf. chs. 2 f. with 7 f.). In chs. 9-11 Paul returns to the question whether God has for- 
saken Israel for ever in view of their rejection of Christ. In Rom. 11:15 he gives his 
answer in terms of reconciliation: “For if their rejection means the reconciliation of 
the world [Katallage kosmou], what will their acceptance mean but life from the 
dead?” The world here means the Gentiles (cf. M. Black, Romans, New Century 
Bible, 1973, 144). Black suggests that resurrection here is of the kind envisaged by 
the Targum on Hos. 6:2 ff. which included the resurrection of the faithful elect, both 
Jew and Gentile. The argument proceeds a fortiori from the Jewish rejection of 
Jesus; the unuttered premise is the unsearchable wisdom and love of God who will in 
his good time bring about his own purposes (cf. Rom. 11:33—36). 

4. As God’s unilateral act in Christ, reconciliation is his > gift, and the ministry of 
reconciliation is spoken of in these terms in 2 Cor. 5:18. Having depicted the act of 
new creation which takes place when a man is “in Christ” (— New, art. kainos NT 
2 (c)), Paul writes: “All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself 
[katallaxantos hemas heauto] and gave us the ministry of reconciliation [dontos 
hemin ten diakonian tes katallages|; that is, God was in Christ reconciling the world 
to himself [kosmon katallasson heauto|, not counting their trespasses against them 
[me logizomenos autois ta paraptomata auton], and entrusting to us. the message of 
reconciliation [kai themenos en hemin ton logon tes katallages|. So we are am- 
bassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We beseech you on behalf 
of Christ, be reconciled to God [katallagete to theo]. For our sake he made him to be 
sin who knew no sin [ton me gnonta hamartian hyper hemon hamartian epoiesen|], so 
that in him we might become the righteousness of God [hina hemeis genometha 
dikaiosyne theou en auto|” (2 Cor. 5:18—21). 

Commenting on the reconciliation mentioned in v. 18, C. K. Barrett points out 
that reconciliation “is closely related to justification, and thus leads directly to the 
mention of God’s righteousness in verse 21. To reconcile is to end a relation of en- 



mity, and to substitute for it one of peace and goodwill. It is not necessarily implied 
that the enmity existed on one side only, but it is plainly stated that in this case the in- 
itiative to reconciliation was God’s who found in the death of his Son (Rom. iii. 25 f.) 
a way in which his love for the sinner and his wrath against sin could be accom- 
modated, so that he might both be righteous himself, and justify the man — the sinful 
man — who relies on faith in Jesus” (The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, BNTC, 
1973, 175), 

The ministry of reconciliation might be contrasted with that of the Qumran com- 
munity which believed that by its obedience to the Torah it made atonement for the 
whole land (1QS 8:5—10; > hilaskomai oT 4). There is at least a triple contrast: in the 
case of the Qumran community, the atonement affects only the land of Israel, 
whereas that brought about by Christ affects mankind; in the case of Qumran, it was 

the obedience of men, whereas with God it is nothing less than the death of his Son in 
the place of sinful man; in the case of Qumran it is something that man does, 
whereas the reconciliation wrought by Christ is the work of God himself. But the 
ministry of reconciliation does not end there. It has to be proclaimed and received. 
Elsewhere Paul defined his task in terms of preaching the word of the — cross (1 Cor. 
1:8). It is the message of God’s love for sinners and reconciliation (Rom. 5:8 ff.). 
What Paul calls “the message of reconciliation” (2 Cor. 5:19) is the > gospel itself. 
And the proclamation of the gospel is laid on the whole church. At the same time, it 
may be noted that the appeal to “be reconciled to God” (2 Cor. 5:20b) is addressed 
to the > church. The church, no less than the world (v. 19), needs to enter into this 
reconciliation and live it out. 

On the grammatical questions raised by 2 Cor. 5:19 see C. K. Barrett, op. cit., 
176 f., who points out that, “The only new thought (as we move from verse 18 to 19) 
is that us is expanded into the world; this says no more than verse 14, he died on 
behalf of all. The absence of the article (kosmon katallasson) has the effect of empha- 
sizing the nature rather than the particularity of the object of the verb — it was the 
whole world he reconciled — including perhaps the rebellious powers of Col. i. 19 f.” 

In 2 Cor. 5:19 reconciliation is understood as justification. It is expressed first of 
all negatively (“not counting their trespasses against them”). There may be a play on 
words between the participle used here /ogizomenos and the word translated by the 
RSV as “message” (Jogos; cf. 1 Cor. 1:18; > Word). The same vb. is used in Rom. 
4:3-8 in the context of justification, where Paul argues from OT passages that 
justification comes about when God does not reckon iniquities to man, but reckons 
him righteous by faith (cf. Rom. 4:3 with Gen. 15:6; Gal. 3:6; Jas. 2:23; and Rom. 
4:7 with Ps. 32[31]:1 f.). It is expressed positively in v. 21, where Christ is said to 
have assumed our sin so that “we might become the righteousness of God.” This is 
no legal fiction. For in Christ the believer actually assumes his righteousness, just as 
Christ assumed the believer’s sin. “Since transgressions no longer counted against 
men (cf. Exod. xxix. 10) the way was open for reconciliation; nothing remained but 
for men to take it. This however they could not do unless they were informed of the 
possibility now open to them” (Barrett, op. cit., 177). 

The word translated as “ambassadors” in v. 20 is actually the 1st person plur. of 
the vb., and C. K. Barrett appropriately translates the phrase “We therefore act as 
ambassadors [presbeuomen].” The same vb. is found at Eph. 6:20, where having 
asked for prayer to proclaim boldly the mystery of the gospel Paul adds “for which I 



am an ambassador [presbeuo] in chains; that I may declare it boldly, as I ought to 
speak” (— Bishop, art. presbyteros). In Phlm. 9 the noun presbytes is used: “yet for 
love’s sake I prefer to appeal to you — I, Paul, an ambassador and now a prisoner 
also for Christ Jesus.” Elsewhere Paul thinks of himself as a keryx, herald (1 Tim. 
2:7; 2 Tim. 1:11; cf. also 2 Pet. 2:5; — Proclamation, art. kerysso). The loftier con- 
cept of ambassador presents an even more marked contrast with Paul’s outward cir- 
cumstances (cf. 2 Cor. 2:14 ff.; 11:1-12:10). But it is particularly appropriate in the 
present context. For Paul and his colleagues are acting “on behalf of Christ [hyper 
Christou|’’, in his interest, virtually in his stead, for Christ is no longer physically pre- 
sent with his church. It is ‘“‘as if [hos]’’ God were exhorting the readers through Paul 
(on parakaleo — Exhort). The substance of this exhortation (“be reconciled to God”’) 
draws attention to the fact that reconciliation is incomplete until it is accepted by 
both sides. Moreover, it needs to be realized by those who are already in the church 
and who presumably have made some form of profession of faith. These verses 
throw light on Paul’s concept of his > apostleship, both in terms of the content of his 
message and in terms of his activity both within and without the church. 

The content of Paul’s apostolic message of reconciliation is definitively expressed 
in v. 21 which sets it out in a parallelism which exhibits chiasmus (Barrett, op. cit., 
179; cf. J. Jeremias, Abba, 1966, 278): 

et Oe ee 

ton me gnonta hamartian hyper hemon hamartian — epoiesen 
“him who knew not sin” “for our sake” “sin” “he made” 
eae d ——, ico ee ee, a 
hemeis genometha dikaiosyne theou en auto 
“we” “might become” “the righteousness “in him” 
of God”’ 

On the sinlessness of Christ and the messiah see Rom. 8:3; Jn. 8:46; cf. Pss.Sol. 
17:40 f.; Test.Jud. 24:1; Test.Lev. 18:9. It is further implied in the narratives of 
Jesus’ baptism (Matt. 3:13—17; especially 14 f. par. Mk. 1:9 ff., Lk. 3:21; Jn. 
1:29-34). Yoma 22b speaks of a one-year-old child that has not tasted sin. “It is only 
as sinless that Christ can, in Paul’s view, bear the sins of others. ... Paul does not 
say, for by definition it would not have been true, that Christ became a sinner, 
transgressing God’s law; neither does he say, for it would have contradicted all ex- 
perience (not least in Corinth) that every believer becomes immediately and 
automatically morally righteous, good as God is good. He says rather that Christ 
became sin; that is, he came to stand in that relation with God which normally is the 
result of sin, estranged from God and the object of his wrath” (Barrett, op. cit., 180). 

2 Cor. 5:21 occupies the same theological place in 2 Cor. as Rom. 3:25 does in 
Rom. The term hilasterion in the latter may be compared with the hamartia here, 
although Barrett rejects the suggestion that it might be translated “sin offering”. 
O. Cullmann refers the verse to Isa. 53:6: “All we like sheep have gone astray; we 


have turned every one to his own way; and the Lorp has laid on him the iniquity of 
us all [LXX: kai kyrios paredoken auton tais hamartiais hemon\” (cf. O. Cullmann, 
The Christology of the New Testament, 1963 2, 76). It may be too specific to say that 
Paul is thinking here of Christ as a “sin offering”. The normal LXX expression for 
“sin offering” is peri hamartias (e.g. Lev. 14:31 for hatta’t; Ps. 40:6[39:7] for 
h*ta’Gh; Isa. 53:10 for ’asam; Lev. 9:2 for l‘hatta’t, “for a sin offering”. The term 
peri hamartias is actually found at Rom. 8:3, but commentators generally prefer to 
take it in the wider sense of “for sin” rather than the narrower one of a particular OT 
type of sacrifice (cf. C. E. B. Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, ICC, I, 1975, 
382). Nevertheless, the thought of both 2 Cor. 5:21 and Rom. 8:3 requires us to say 
that what Christ did on the cross comprehends and supersedes the OT sin offerings. 
In Gal. 3:13 f. Paul did not use the concept of reconciliation but expressed the aton- 
ing work of Christ on the cross in terms of the removal of the curse. The fact that 
Jesus died on the cross is itself proof that he bore the curse of God: “Christ redeemed 
us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us — for it is written, ‘Cursed 
be every one who hangs on a tree’ — that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham 
might come upon the Gentiles, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit 
through faith” (Gal. 3:13 f.; cf. Deut. 21:23 — Curse, art. anathema). Here again 
there is the thought of the benefit to others achieved by Christ in his death on their 
behalf. Although some scholars wish to see Christ’s action as that of a representative 
rather than of a substitute (cf. M. D. Hooker, “Interchange in Christ”, JTS New 
Series 22, 1971, 349-61), these verses make it impossible to see his work as represen- 
tative without at the same time being vicarious. 

5. The substance of the reconciliation lies in the ending of the enmity between 
God and man (Rom. 5:10), in that God “did not count their trespasses against them” 
(2 Cor. 5:19). Reconciliation consists therefore in the fact that “‘we have peace with 
God”, a phrase which is used in Rom. 5:1 to indicate the effect of justification (> 
Peace, art. eirene). In this sense reconciliation is the precondition of our —> salvation 
(Rom. 5:10b) and the basis for the all-embracing “new creation” (2 Cor. 5:17 ff.), 
which is clarified in Rom. 5:1 ff., “because God’s love has been poured into our 
hearts through the Holy Spirit which has been given to us” (v. 5b). 

6. The “message of reconciliation” (2 Cor. 5:19) is matched by the “ministry of 
reconciliation” (2 Cor. 5:18, 20; - Serve, art. diakoneo), in which the apostle himself 
is engaged. This cannot, after all that has gone before, mean any longer a cultic 
ministry designed to bring about reconciliation or to re-enact it, but rather reconcil- 
ing activity in the everyday world and the call to accept the reconciliation as it is 
preached, i.e. a call to faith (v. 20). 

7. Col. 1:20, 22 and Eph. 2:16 have instead of katallasso the otherwise unknown 
vb. apokatallasso; but this ties up with the above-mentioned Pauline use of 
katallasso and has, basically, the same meaning. “For in him all the fullness of God 
was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things [di’ autou 
apokatallaxai ta panta eis auton|, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by 
the blood of his cross. And you, who once were estranged and hostile in mind, doing 
evil deeds, he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death [apokatellagete en 
to somati tes sarkos autou dia tou thanatou|, to present you holy and blameless and 
irreproachable before him” (Col. 1:19—22). There are here many of the features of 
reconciliation which we have seen in the earlier Pauline literature: the need for recon- 



ciliation; the fact that it is effected from God’s side: the fact that it is not only that 
man needs to be reconciled to God, but that there is the estrangement caused by sin 
which has to be dealt with before God can be reconciled with man: that fact that it is 
the death of Christ referred to in terms of his “blood” and “cross”: and the purpose 
in presenting man as righteous before God. The ground of this victory in cancelling 
the debt of the law on the cross, thus depriving the principalities and powers of their 
hold on man, is further explained in Col. 2:13 ff. But to the thought that “God was in 
Christ” (2 Cor. 5:19) is added the thought that “in him all the fullness of God was 
pleased to dwell’ (Col. 1:19; cf. 2:9; — Fullness, art. pleroo NT 5 (b)). Moreover, the 
scope of reconciliation is given a cosmic dimension. The passage may well be Paul’s 
adaptation of a christological hymn, reflecting Jewish beliefs about angels and 
cosmic powers (cf. E. Lohse, Colossians and Philemon, Hermeneia, 1971, 59; R. P. 
Martin, “Reconciliation and Forgiveness in the Letter to the Colossians”, in R. 
Banks, ed., Reconciliation and Hope: New Testament Essays on Atonement and Es- 
chatology presented to L. L. Morris, 1974, 104—25). The passage presupposes a 
cosmic catastrophe caused by the powers of evil. He, who is the creator and 
sustainer of all, is he who has triumphed over the powers of evil on the cross and is 
therefore the reconciler of all (Col. 1:16 ff.; cf. 2:15). Within this cosmic context is 
set the reconciliation of believers (Col. 1:21 f.). But it should be noted that the recon- 
ciliation is conditional upon continuing in the faith (Col. 1:23). 

Eph. 2:16 sees the reconciliation in the context of its effect on the relationship of 
Jews and Gentiles before God. The Gentiles were at one time “separated from 
Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of 
promise, having no hope and without God in the world” (Eph. 2:12). But they have 
been “‘brought near in the blood of Christ” (Eph. 2:13). His death has, however, not 
only reconciled the Gentiles; it has also reconciled the Jews, providing a way of 
salvation to them which they did not have before. At the same time the act of recon- 
ciling Jew and Gentile to God reconciles them to each other and makes a new 
humanity. “For he is our peace, who has made us both one, and has broken down 
the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law of commandments and 
ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so mak- 
ing peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby 
bringing the hostility to an end [kai apokatallaxe tous amphoterous en heni somati to 
theo dia tou staurou, apokteinas ten echthran en auto]. And he came and preached 
peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near; for through him we 
both have access in one Spirit to the Father” (Eph. 2: 14-18). 

8. Reconciliation on a human level is discussed in two important passages. In 1 
Cor. 7:10 f. Paul discusses the question of > divorce: ‘“To the married I give charge, 
not I but the Lord, that the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she 
does, let her remain single or else be reconciled to her husband [e to andri 
katallageto]) — and that the husband should not divorce his wife.” The teaching is in 
line with Jesus’ interpretation of the OT on this matter (Matt. 19:3—12, par. Mk. 
10:2-12, Lk. 16:18; cf. Matt. 5:27—32; Deut. 24:1—4), and hence may properly be 
said to be a charge from the Lord. The use of two separate vbs. (choristhe, of the 
wife, and aphienai of the husband, which was the normal term for divorce) might 
reflect the fact that in Judaism only the husband had the right to divorce (but on this 
see D. Daube, The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism, 1956, 362-65). In con- 


trast with 1 Cor. 7:13—16, where Paul deals with the question of whether divorce 
should take place on the grounds that one party is a believer and the other is not, 
Paul’s judgment here seems to refer to the question of divorce in general. His answer 
is that separation and divorce do not put the former partners outside the church. In 
the first instance, the two courses open are either to separate and remain single or to 
be reconciled. In the former case, it would seem that Paul recognizes that there are 
cases where there is no real alternative but for the break-up of a marriage. It may 
even be that both former partners remain in the church. The fact that a believer may 
find himself or herself married to an unbeliever is no grounds for separation, as the 
believing partner consecrates the other partner and provides the possibility of saving 
him or her (vv. 12—16). It is thus not a case for Paul of the believer having to 
separate himself from the unbeliever. Remarriage with a believer is a possibility that 
can certainly be contemplated after the death of the former partner (cf. v. 39). On the 
other hand, it is not a sin to marry, when one is “free” from a marriage partner (cf. 
wv. 27 f.; + Redemption, art. [yo NT 6 (f); — Separate, art. chorizo). 

The unique vb. diallassomai occurs in Matt. 5:24: “So if-you are offering your gift 
at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave 
your gift there before the altar and go; first be reconciled |diallagethi| to your 
brother, and then come and offer your gift” (Matt. 5:23 f.). According to the Mish- 
nah tractate Yoma, “For transgressions that are between man and God the Day of 
Atonement effects atonement; but for transgressions that are between a man and his 
fellow the Day of Atonement effects atonement only if he has appeased his fellow” 
(Yoma 8:9). But D. Hill claims that in contemporary Judaism this idea of reconcilia- 
tion ‘“‘was overshadowed by the desire to avoid desecrating the Temple or defiling 
one’s self (cf. CD vi. 14—vii. 4)” (The Gospel of Matthew, New Century Bible, 1972, 
122). Jesus’ teaching here is of a piece with his teaching on the two great command- 
ments and the parable of the Good Samaritan which lay down man’s vocation to 
love God with the whole of his being and at the same time to love his neighbour as 
himself (Matt. 22:34—-40 par. Mk. 12:28—34; cf. Lk. 10:25—37; Deut. 6:4; Lev. 
19:18; > Brother, art. plesion; > Command, art. entole NT 1; > Hear, art. akouo NT 
3; — Love, art. agapao). The teaching of Matt. 5:23 f. clearly shows that no sacrifice 
is acceptable to God without repentance and reconciliation. 

The following saying (Matt. 5:25 f.) is paralleled in Lk. 12:58 f.: “As you go with 
your accuser before the magistrate, make an effort to settle with him on the way |dos 
ergasian apellachthai ap’ autou; cf. Matt. isthi eunoon to antidiko sou tachy. “Make 
friends quickly with your accuser’’], lest he drag you to the judge, and the judge hand 
you over to the officer, and the officer put you in prison. I tell you, you will never get 
out till you have paid the very last copper.” The need for human reconciliation is 
parabolic of man’s need of reconciliation with God (cf. also the parable of the un- 
forgiving servant in Matt. 18:23—35). The context of Lk. brings this out even more 
clearly. The saying is preceded by Jesus’ denunciation of those who pretend to be 
able to discern the weather but are unable to discern the times (Lk. 12:54 ff.). It is 
followed by the discussion of the Galileans butchered by Pilate and those killed by 
the fall of the tower of Siloam. Jesus draws the conclusion that they were no worse 
sinners than the rest on whom judgment had not yet fallen; “I tell you, No; but unless 
you repent you will all likewise perish” (Lk. 13: 3, 5). This is then followed by the 
parable of the fig tree which has failed to bear fruit, and is given just one more 



chance (Lk. 13: 6—9; — Fruit, art. syke; cf. also Lk. 13:22—30). All this reinforces the 
point of Lk. 12:58 f. which is to come to terms with the accuser (Jesus with his 
message of repentance in view of the coming of the impending judgment), for when > 
judgment falls it will be irrevocable and relentless. 

apallasso is found in the active transitive sense of free, release, deliver in Heb. 2:15 
of the incarnation: “‘Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself 
likewise partook of the same nature, that through death he might destroy him who 
has the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver |apallaxe] all those who through 
fear of death were subject to lifelong bondage” (Heb. 2:14 f.). It also occurs in Lk. 
9:40 D of release from an evil spirit. In Acts 19:12 it has a similar connotation and is 
used in the intransitive of diseases mentioned in parallel with evil spirits, which left 

antallagma, that which is given in exchange, occurs only in Mk. 8:37: “For what 
can a man give in return for his life? [ti gar doi anthropos antallagma tes psyches 
autou|” (cf. par. Matt. 16:26). For what does it profit a man, to gain the whole world 
and forfeit his life?” The par. in Lk. 9:25 employs a circumlocution. The synoptic 
context is that of the call for complete renunciation as the pre-condition of dis- 
cipleship and acceptance with the Father. “For whoever would save his life will lose 
it; and whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel’s will save it” (Mk. 8:35 f.; 
cf. par. Matt. 16:25 f.; Lk. 9:24 f.; Jn. 12:25). There is the implication that man can 
give nothing in exchange for his life, and therefore even to take up the — cross in ut- 
ter self-abandonment is far more important than to gain the whole world. The 
Pharisaic work written shortly after A.D. 70, Syr. Bar., contains a similar saying: 
“For what, then, have men lost their life, and for what have those who were on earth 
exchanged their souls?” (51:15). But the saying also recalls Ps. 49:7 f., 15 (48:8 f., 
16): “Truly no man can ransom [l/ytrosetai] himself [v./. “no man can ransom his 
brother], or give to God the price of his life [exhilasma], for the ransom of his life is 
costly [kai ten timen tes lytroseos tes psyches autou], and can never suffice. ... But 
God will ransom my soul [/ytrosetai ten psychen mou] from the power of Sheol, for 
he will receive me” (— Redemption, arts. [yo and lytron). Like the other sayings in 
the Synoptic Gospels, the saying here does not offer a theology of reconciliation in 
the Pauline sense. Rather, it states in the sharpest possible terms man’s need for 
reconciliation, whilst implying at the same time that reconciliation is available to 
those who are concerned enough to seek it. 

~H. Vorlander, C. Brown 

— Anger, > Cross, — Forgiveness, + Holy, > Judgment, ~ Redemption, — Sacrifice, 
— Sin 
(a). G. Aulen, Christus Victor: An Historical Study of the Three Main Types of the Idea of Atonement, 
1931; B. W. Bacon, “The Festival of Lives given for the Nation in Jewish and Christian Faith’, Hibbert 
Journal 15, 1917, 256—78; D. M. Baillie, God Was in Christ: An Essay on Incarnation and Atonement, 
1961? ; C. K. Barrett, The Epistle to the Romans, BNTC, 1957; “The Background of Mark 10:45”, in 
A. J. B. Higgins, ed., New Testament Essays: Studies in Memory of Thomas Walter Manson, 1959, 
1-18; and The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, BNTC, 1973; K. Barth, CD IV, 1—3, The Doctrine of 
Reconciliation, G. C. Berkouwer, The Work of Christ, 1970; H. D. Betz, Galatians, Hermeneia, 1978; 
G. Bornkamm, “The Revelation of God’s Wrath (Romans 1—3)”, in Early Christian Experience, 1969, 
47-70; and “The Revelation of Christ to Paul on the Damascus Road and Paul’s Doctrine of Justifica- 
tion and Reconciliation”, in R. J. Banks, ed., Reconciliation and Hope: New Testament Essays on 

Atonement and Eschatology Presented to L. L. Morris, 1974, 90-103; F. F. Bruce, “Paul and 
Paulinism”, Vox Evangelica 7, 1971, 5-16; and Paul and Jesus, 1977; A. Biichler, Studies in Sin and 



Atonement in the Rabbinic Literature of the First Century, 1928; F. Biichsel, allasso etc., TDNT I 
251-59; R. Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, I, 1952, 285 ff., 292-305; and “Adam and 
Christ according to Romans 5”, in W. Klassen and G. F. Snyder, eds., Current Issues in New Testa- 
ment Interpretation: Essays in Honor of Otto A. Piper, 1962, 143-65; 8. Cave, The Doctrine of the 
Work of Christ, 1937; L. Cerfaux, Christ in the Theology of St. Paul, 1959; C. E. B. Cranfield, The 
Epistle to the Romans, 1, ICC, 1975; R. G. Crawford, “Is the Penal Theory of Atonement Scriptural?”, 
SJT 23, 1970, 257-72; O. Cullmann, The Christology of the New Testament, 19637; R. W. Dale, The 
Atonement: The Congregational Union Lecture for 1875, 1896 '*; E. R. Dalglish, Psalm Fifty-One in 
the Light of Ancient and Near Eastern Patternism, 1962; W. D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism, 
1955’; J. Denney, The Death of Christ, 1902, revised by R. V. G. Tasker, 1950; The Christian Doctrine 
of Reconciliation: The Cunningham Lectures for 1917, (1917) 1959; and The Atonement and the 
Modern Mind, 1903; F. W. Dillistone, The Significance of the Cross, 1945; Jesus and His Cross: 
Studies on the Saving Work of Christ, 1953; and The Christian Understanding of Atonement, 1965; N. 
Dimock, The Doctrine of the Death of Christ; in Relation to the Sin of Man, the Condemnation of the 
Law, and the Dominion of Satan, 19037; C. H. Dodd, “hilaskesthai, its Cognates, Derivatives and Syn- 
onyms in the Septuagint”, J7S 32, 1931, 352—60 (reprinted with minor alterations in “Atonement”, The 
Bible and the Greeks, 1935, 82-95); The Epistle to the Romans, 1932; The Johannine Epistles, 1946; J. 
Downing, “Jesus and Martyrdom”, JTS New Series 14, 1963, 279-93; J. D. G. Dunn, “Paul’s Un- 
derstanding of the Death of Jesus’, in R. J. Banks, ed., op. cit., 125-41; E. E. Ellis, “Christ Crucified”, 
in R. J. Banks, ed., op. cit., 69-75; P. T. Forsyth, The Cruciality of the Cross, 1909; and The Work of 
Christ, (1910) 1965; R. S. Franks, The Work of Christ; A Historical Study of Christian Doctrine, 
(1918) 1962; and The Atonement: The Dale Lectures for 1933, 1934; B. Gerhardsson, “Sacrificial Ser- 
vice and Atonement in the Gospel of Matthew”, in R. J. Banks, ed., op. cit., 25—35; L. W. Grensted, A 
Short History of the Doctrine of the Atonement, 1920; L. W. Grensted, ed., The Atonement in History 
and in Life: A Volume of Essays, 1929; A. T. Hanson, “The Reproach and Vindication of the 
Messiah”, in Studies in Paul’s Technique and Theology, 1974, 13-66; M. Hengel, Crucifixion in the 
Ancient World and the Folly of the Message of the Cross, 1977; J. Herrmann and F. Buchsel, hileos 
etc., TDNT III 300-23; W. Herrmann, The Communion of the Christian with God, 1971; F. C. N. 
Hicks, The Fullness of Sacrifice: An Essay in Reconciliation, 19467; D. Hill, Greek Words and Hebrew 
Meanings: Studies in the Semantics of Soteriological Terms, Society for New Testament Studies 
Monograph Series 5, 1967, 23-48; H. A. Hodges, The Pattern of Atonement, 1955; L. Hodgson, The 
Doctrine of Atonement: The Hale Lectures, 1950, 1951; M. D. Hooker, Jesus and the Servant, 1959; 
and “Interchange in Christ”, JTS New Series 22, 1971, 349-61: T. H. Hughes, The Atonement: 
Modern Theories of the Doctrine, 1949; J. Jeremias, The Central Message of the New Testament, 1965; 
R. J. Johnson, Sacrifice and Penitence in Israel, 1965; E. Kasemann, “The Saving Significance of the 
Death of Jesus in Paul”, Perspectives on Paul, 1971, 32—59; and “Some Thoughts on ‘The Doctrine of 
Reconciliation in the New Testament’ ”, in J. M. Robinson, ed., The Future of our Religious Past: Es- 
says in Honour of Rudolf Bultmann, 1971, 49-64; O. Kaiser and R. Pesch, “Reconciliation”, EBT Il 
730-38; G. W. H. Lampe, Reconciliation in Christ, 1956; S. H. Langdon, “The Hebrew Word for 
‘Atone’”’, ExpT 22, 1910-11, 320—27; E. Lohse, History of the Suffering and Death of Jesus Christ, 
1967; and Colossians and Philemon, Hermeneia, 1971; W. R. Maltby, Christ and His Cross, 1935; T. 
W. Manson, “HILASTERION”, JTS 46, 1945, 1-10; I. H. Marshall, ““The Development of the Con- 
cept of Redemption in the New Testament”, in R. J. Banks, ed., op. cit., 153-69; and The Work of 
Christ, 1971; R. P. Martin, “Reconciliation and Forgiveness in Colossians”, in R. J. Banks, ed., op. cit., 
104-24; Colossians: The Church’s Lord and the Christian’s Liberty, 1972; and Colossians and 
Philemon, New Century Bible, 1974; J. Macdonald, The Theology of the Samaritans, 1964; R. C. 
Moberly, Atonement and Personality, 1901; J. Moltmann, The Crucified God, 1974; L. Morris, The 
Apostolic Preaching of the Cross, (1955) 1965°; “The Meaning of hilasterion in Romans iii. 25”, NTS 
2, 1955-56, 33-43; and The Cross in the New Testament, 1967: J. K. Mozley, The Doctrine of 
Atonement, 1915; J. Murray, Redemption — Accomplished and Applied, 1955; and The Epistle to the 
Romans, NLC, III, 1960-65; R. R. Nicole, “C. H. Dodd and the Doctrine of Propitiation”, W7J 17, 
1955, 117-57; A. Oepke, apokathistemi, apakatastasis, TDNT I 387—93; J. I. Packer, “What Did the 
Cross Achieve? The Logic of Penal Substitution”, TB 25, 1974, 3-45: R. S. Paul, The Atonement and 
the Sacraments: The Relationship of the Atonement to the Sacraments of Baptism and the Lora’s 
Supper, 1961; S. Perubcéan, Sin in the Old Testament, 1963; G. von Rad, Old Testament Theology, 
I-II, 1962-65; H. Rashdall, The Idea of Atonement in Christian Theology, Being the Bampton Lec- 
tures for 1915, 1919; H. N: Ridderbos, “The Earliest Confession of the Atonement in Paul’, in R. J. 



Banks, ed., op. cit., 76-89; A. B. Ritschl, A Critical History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification 
and Reconciliation, 1872; and The Christian Doctrine of Justification and Reconciliation, (1900) 1966; 
H. W. Robinson, The Cross of the Servant, 1926;.and The Cross in the Old Testament, 1955; E. P. 
Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion, 1977; H. J. Schoeps, 
Paul: The Theology of the Apostle in the Light of Jewish Religious History, 1961, 126-67; C. Ryder 
Smith, The Bible Doctrine of Salvation: A Study of the Atonement, 1971; D. Solle, Christ the Represen- 
tative: An Essay in Theology after “The Death of God’, 1967; E. Speiser, “Ritual Expiation in Mari and 
Israel”, BASOR 149, 1958, 17-25; K. Stendahl, Paul Among Jews and Gentiles, and Other Essays, 
1977; G. B. Stevens, The Christian Doctrine of Salvation, 1905; A. M. Stibbs, The Meaning of the 
Word “Blood” in Scripture, 19547; V. Taylor, Jesus and His Sacrifice; A Study of the Passion 
Sayings in the Gospels, 1937; Forgiveness and Reconciliation: A Study of New Testament Theology, 
1941; and The Atonement in New Testament Teaching, (1940) 1958 3; S. H. Travis, Divine Retribution 
in the Thought of Paul (Dissertation, Cambridge), 1970; H. E. W. Turner, The Meaning of the Cross, 

1959; B. B. Warfield, “The New Testament Terminology of Redemption”, Princeton Theological Re- 
view 15, 1917, 201-49; M. Warren, Interpreting the Cross, 1966; J. S: Whale, Victor and Victim: The 
Christian Doctrine of Redemption, 1960; D. E. H. Whiteley, The Theology of St. Paul, 1974? 130-54; 

H. W. Wolff, Anthropology of the Old Testament, 1974, 60 ff.; B. G. Worrall, “Substitutionary Atone- 
ment in the Theology of James Denney”, SJT 28, 1975, 341-57; F. M. Young, “Sacrifice”, ExpT 86, 
1974-75, 305-9; and Sacrifice and the Death of Christ, 1975. | 

(b). D. von Allmen, “Réconciliation du Monde et Christologie cosmique, de II Cor. 5:14—21 a Col. 
1:15—23”, Revue d’Histoire et de Philosophie Religieuses 48, 1968, 32-45; P. Althaus, Die letzten 
Dinge, 1949°; C. Andresen and P. Althaus, “Wiederbringung Aller”, RGG? VI 1693 ff.; E. Bammel, 
“Zum judischen Martyrerkult”, TLZ 78, 1953, 119-26; H. Beintker, “Versohnung”, EKL III 1652 ff.; 
H. Braun, Gerichtsgedanke und Rechtfertigungslehre bei Paulus, Untersuchungen zum Neuen 
Testament 19, 1930; J. Clavier, “Notes sur un Mot-clef du Johannisme et de la Soteriologie biblique: 
Hilasmos’’, NovT 10, 1968, 287 ff.; P. Cornehl, Die Zukunft der Versohnung, 1971; J. Dupont, La 
Réconciliation dans la Théologie de Saint Paul, 1953; G. Fitzer, “Der Ort der VersGhnungslehre nach 
Paulus”, TLZ 22, 1966, 161 ff.; J. Friedrich, W. POhlmann and P. Stuhlmacher, eds., Rechtfertigung. 
Festschrift fiir Ernst Kdsemann zum siebzigsten Geburtstag, 1976; W. First, “2 Kor. 5, 11-21. 
Auslegung und Meditation”, EvTh 28, 1968, 221 ff.; H. Gollwitzer, Von der Stellvertretung Gottes. 
Zum Gesprdach mit D. Sélle, (1967) 1968 2; L. Goppelt, “VersOhnung durch Christus”, Lutherische 
Monatshefte 6, 1967, 263 ff.; J. Herrmann, Die Idee der Stihne im Alten Testament, 1905; S. Herner, 
Suhne und Vergebung in Israel, 1942; H. J. Iwand, “Zur VersOhnungslehre”, in Das tat Gott. 50 Jahre 
Bahnau, 1956, 208 ff. (reprinted in Um den rechten Glauben, ThB 9, 1965, 214 ff.); and 
Predigtmeditationen, 1963, 547 ff. (on 2 Cor. 5:19 ff.); M. Kahler, Zur Lehre von der Versohnung, 
(1898) 1937; E. Kasemann, “Zur Verstandnis von R6mer 3, 24-26”, ZNW 43, 1950-51, 150 ff. 
(reprinted in Exegestische Versuche und Besinnungen, I, 1968°, 96 ff.); K. Koch, “Stihne und Siinden- 
vergebung um die Wende von der exilischen zur nachexilischen Zeit”, Ev7h 26 (Neue Folge 21), 1966, 

217 ff.; W. Kreck, Die Zukunft des Gekommenen, (1961) 1966 2, 139 ff.; G. Lanczkowski et al., “Ver- 
séhnung”, RGG3 VI 1367 ff.; E. Lohse, Martyrer und Gottesknecht. Untersuchungen zur urchristlichen 
Verkundigung vom Suhntod Tesu Christi, FRLANT 46, 1955; S. Lyonnet, “De Notione Expiationis”, 

Verbum Domini 36, 1958, 129-48; ibid. 37, 1959, 336-52; ibid. 38, 1960, 65—75, 241-61; and 
“L’Hymme christologique de |’Epitre aux Colossiens et la Féte juive du Nouvel An”, RSR 48, 1960, 
92-100; F. Maas, kapar, THAT I 842-58; Die Mauer ist abgebrochen. Zur Predigt der Versohnung. 
Hirtenbrief der niederldndisch-reformierten Kirche, 1968; A. Merx, Der Messias oder Taéb der 
Samaritaner, 1909; W. Michaelis, Die VersGhnung des Alls, 1950; J. Michl, “Die ‘Versohnung’ (Kol. 1, 
20)”, ThQ 128, 1948, 442-62; J. Moltmann, “Gott versGhnt und macht frei”, EvKomm 3, 1970, 515 ff.; 
L. Moraldi, Espiazone sacrificiale e riti espiatori nell’ ambiente biblico e nell’ AT, 1956; F. Mussner, 
Christus, das All und die Kirche. Studien zur Theologie des Epheserbriefes, Trierer Theologische 
Studien 5, 1955; A. Nygren, Die Versohnung als Gottestat, 1932; J. J. Stamm, Erlodsen und Vergeben 
im Alten Testament, 1940; Versodhnung. Das deutch-russische Gesprach tiber das christliche 
Verstandnis der Versohnung, Herausgegeben vom Aussenamt der Evangelischen Kirche Deutschlands, 
Studienheft 5, 1967; B. N. Wambacgq, “ ‘per eum reconciliare ... quae in caelis sunt’ (Col. 1, 20)”, RB 
55, 1948, 35-42; O. Weber, “Das dogmatische Problem der Versohnungslehre”, EvTh 26 (Neue Folge 
21), 1966, 258 ff. (reprinted in Die Treue Gottes und die Kontinuitat der menschlichen Existenz, 1967, 
82 ff.). 



Redemption, Loose, Ransom, Deliverance, Release, Salvation, Saviour 

Whenever men by their own fault or through some superior power have come under 
the control of someone else, and have lost their freedom to implement their will and 
decisions, and when their own resources are inadequate to deal with that other 
power, they can regain their freedom only by the intervention of a third party. In the 
NT, depending on the aspect envisaged, the Gk word-groups associated with /yo, 
sozo, rhyomai, are used to express such intervention. lyo, to free (42 times in the NT) 
is used to express liberation from bonds or by payment of a ransom (/ytron), but it 
has other shades of meaning which are also discussed here. sozo (106 times in the 
NT) is the commonest term and has the widest range of meaning. Predominantly it 
means to save, preserve and rescue. The least used, rhyomai (16 times), has the 
narrowest range of meaning, i.e. to rescue, deliver, and thus save from a threatening 
or acute danger. softer, derived from sozo, means deliverer, saviour, and was in 
general use to denote someone who so acted. Hence it is used in the NT as a title of 
honour for God and Christ. In the NT these terms are used pre-eminently of the 
redemptive work of Christ. 

; Ava (lyo), to loose, untie, set free, release, annul, abolish; 
| io | Avaic (lysis), release, divorce; Katadvw (katalyo), destroy, 
demolish, abolish; xatadvua (katalyma), lodging, guest room; dkatadvtoc 
(akatalytos), indestructible; éklvw (eklyo), become loose, become weary, become 
weak; dzodvw (apolyo), set free, release, discharge, pardon, let go, send away, 

dismiss, divorce. 

cL lyo (from Homer onwards) means to loose, make free. When used with a personal 

object it means to set free, ransom, both literally and metaphorically. The mean- 
ing to dissolve gives the further sense of to destroy. Already in Homer (Od. 5, 397; 
13, 321) it was used of the salvation which the gods give to men, e.g. from difficulties 
and need, but without any recognizable link with — sin. Numerous compound forms 
are found in cl. Gk. W. Mundle 

oT The LXX uses lyo to translate 7 different Heb. vbs. The most common is patah (7 
times in the gal, niphal and piel) which is the regular vb. for to open (Gen. 42:27; 
Job 39:5; Ps. 102[101]:20; Isa. 5:27; 14:17; 58:6; Jer. 40[47]:4). It stands twice for 
natar in the hiphil, meaning to free, loose those in bondage (Pss. 105[104]:20; 
146[145]:7); and twice for nasal, draw off sandals (Exod. 3:5; Jos. 5:15). In the 
Aram. section of Daniel it stands for 5‘ra’, as a past participle meaning loosed (Dan. 
3:92[25] LXX and Theod.), and fig. to loosen knots, i.e. solve difficulties (Dan. 
5:12). It stands for rasah in the niphal which means to be pleased with, accept 
favourably, in Isa. 40:2, in the message to Jerusalem that her inquity is pardoned. It 
also occurs once each for nasa’, lift up, take away, of the Lord taking away sins 
because of Job (Job 42:9); and star, of the destruction of the house of God (Ezr. 
5:12; the other reading has katelysen). It has no Heb. equivalent in 1 Esd. 1:55; 9:13, 
46; Tob. 3:17; Jud. 6:14; 9:2; Job 39:2; Sir. 28:2; 3 Macc. 1:4; 6:27, 29; 4 Macc. 

32113 7:13: 12:8. f, 
katalyo is used 39 times for 14 Heb. equivalents but is generally without particular 


theological significance. It frequently stands for Jin and lin, lodge, pass the night, es- 
pecially in historical narratives (e.g. Gen. 19:2; 24:23; Num. 22:8; Ruth 4:14; 2 
Sam. 17:8). It is seldom used with the meaning to pull down (Ezr. 5:12 v.l., see 
above; 2 Ki. 25:10 for natas), or to dissolve, abolish (2 Macc. 2:22). 

eklyo stands for 19 different Heb. vbs. It commonly has the meaning of losing 
one’s strength, letting one’s heart faint, of relaxing one’s hands or allowing them to 
become feeble (e.g. Deut. 20:3; Jos. 10:6; 18:3; 2 Sam. 4:1; 2 Chr. 15:7; Isa. 13:7; 
29:9; Jer. 4:31; Lam. 2:12, 19; Ezek. 7:17). However, in Job 19:25 it stands for 
ga’al, redeem, act as a kinsman, in a participial form used as a noun, i.e. redeemer: 
“For I know that my Redeemer [MT go’*/i; LXX ho eklyein me mellon] lives, and at 
last he will stand upon the earth [lit. “dust” as RSV mg.; MT ‘al-‘apar; but LXX epi 
ges, as RSV].” The go’el in Heb. was the kinsman redeemer, who as the closest rela- 
tion was the avenger of blood, the one who had to redeem the blood of the murdered 
victim, buy back family possessions, redeem from bondage, and take a kinsman’s 
widow ( — /ytron OT 1(c)). The translation of Job 19:25 f. is notoriously difficult (for 
a review of interpretations see J. Speer, ZA W 25, 1905, 47 ff.; and H. H. Rowley, 
From Moses to Qumran, 1963, 179 ff.). Rowley thinks that the term “vindicator” is 
more appropriate than “redeemer” here. For the context is not concerned with deliv- 
erance from Sheol but with the vindication of Job’s name before men (Job, New Cen- 
tury Bible, 1970, 172). The verse may take up the thought of Job 16:19: “Even now, 
behold, my witness is in heaven, and he that vouches for me is on high.” Job is think- 
ing of God himself as his go’el. The same Heb. word is used of God in Ps. 19:14 (MT 
v. 15; LXX 18:15): “Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be 
acceptable in thy sight, O LorD, my rock and my redeemer [MT stiri w‘go’“li; LXX 
boethe mou kai lytrota mou].” In both cases the main emphasis is on vindication and 
help. Whether there is also an element of buying back will depend on the degree to 
which it is possible to speak of this factor in the general idea of the go’el. However, 
there is the implication in the idea that the go’el rescues that which was forfeited and 
restores justice to those who are not in a position to help themselves. 

There has been considerable debate as to whether Job 19:25 f. looks to a life after 
death and even some form of > resurrection. V. 26 reads: “and after my skin has 
thus been destroyed [MT w*ahar ‘Gri nigqpu zo’t; LXX anastesai to derma mou to 
anatlon tauta| then from my flesh I shall see God |MT dmibb ‘Sari ’eh ‘zeh ’‘léah; 
LXX para gar kyriou tauta moi synetelesthe|” (RSV mg.). The difficulties of the 
Heb. are reflected in the LXX translation which gives quite a different rendering: 
“For I know that he is eternal, who is about to dissolve me on earth, to raise this skin 
of mine which draweth up these things” (Job 19:25 f. LXX). 

In the first half of the verse the vb. translated as “destroyed” is the Heb. nagap in 
the niphal, and means lit. “they have struck off’. This could be a reference to the 
ravages of disease. There is no justification in the text for the AV’s insertion of 
“worms” as the subject of the vb. The meaning of “imibb’sari is equally disputed. The 
prep. min which is incorporated in the word means “from”’. This is taken by the RSV 
tx. to mean “without”. But “in” (AV) is also possible. Thus the second half of the v. 
could mean either that Job expected to see God, his redeemer, in his flesh, i.e. in his 
lifetime, or that Job expected to see God without his flesh, i.e. in an after-life. The 
allusion to an after-life is questioned by those who claim that man in the OT had no 
firm expectations of —> life after > death. The idea of some kind of incorporeal ex- 


istence is also questioned by those who claim that it is unthinkable for OT man to 
conceive of a bodiless existence. Therefore, some form of resurrection life is en- 
visaged here. (On this question generally see H. H. Rowley, “Death and Beyond”, in 
The Faith of Israel, 1956, 150-76.) 

In view of the difficulties of the verse, Rowley thinks it unlikely that we shall be 
able to achieve any convincing reconstruction within the limits of our present 
knowledge. “That it is in its original form is very improbable. To remove any trace of 
the thought of resurrection is as improper as it is to strengthen it. Two things seem to 
be clear. Job is assured that his Vindicator will arise to vindicate his innocence, and 
that he himself will see God. If, as seems probable, the Vindicator is God, this means 
that he will be aware of his vindication. That this vindication is not expected until af- 
ter Job’s death is likely, since he has cried for his blood to demand satisfaction. But 
in what form Job will be conscious of vindication must remain obscure” (Job, 174). 
Perhaps two further points may be added. On the one hand, although Job was vin- 
dicated by God (cf. Job 41), he did not actually > see God in any literal sense. On 
the other hand, seeing God is not something that man can do in this life according to 
the OT (cf. Exod. 33:20, 23). 

NT l. In the NT Jyo is used in the lit. sense of untying the thong of a sandal (Mk. 1:7 

par. Lk. 3:16; Jn. 1:27; Acts 13:25, John the Baptist speaking of Jesus; cf. Acts 
7:33 with Exod. 3:5, of Moses by the burning bush), untying the ass’s colt (Matt. 
21:2 par. Mk. 11: 2, 4, 5; Lk. 19:30 f., 33), and of removing Paul’s bonds (Acts 
22:30). In Jn. 11:44 it is used of the unbinding of Lazarus from his grave-clothes. It 
is found in a weakened sense in Acts 13:43 of being released from the synagogue; cf. 
RSV “when the meeting of the synagogue broke up” (this rendering may be related 
to 4 below). 

2. The sense of setting free, untying and thus loosing is applied to > angels (Rev. 
9:14 f.) and > Satan (Rev. 20:3, 7). In the former case the context is the vision of the 
sixth angel with a trumpet who is commanded: “ ‘Release the four angels who are 
bound at the great river Euphrates.’ So the four angels were released, who had been 
held ready for the hour, the day, the month, and the year, to kill a third of mankind.” 
This causes a great, terrible army to be released. The river represents the boundary 
of Assyria and Babylon, the area from which the catastrophic invasions came in OT 
times. But in Rev. — Babylon represents the wicked world in its ongoing manifesta- 
tions (cf. chs. 17 f.). The number four probably represents completeness. Possibly the 
angels are the same as in Rev. 7:1 who restrain the forces of nature. But this appears 
unlikely in view of the evil character of the angels here. As the angels are released, so 
too are the evil forces of destruction. The precise significance of the vision depends 
upon the way in which Rev. as a whole is interpreted. Some exegetes treat the visions 
as consecutive, in which case the vision refers to some specific event. But according 
to the parallelistic interpretation of Rev., the numerous series of visions relate to dif- 
ferent aspects of ongoing history (— Number, art. hepta NT4). In this case the vision 
is that of God permitting war to afflict mankind down the ages with great destruction 
and loss of life. Nevertheless, the effect is not wholly negative. For it gives occasion 
for repentance, even though many do not take it (Rev. 9:20 f.). On the binding and 
loosing of Satan and the question of the millennium — Number, art. chilias nT 4. 

3. Satan is mentioned in connexion with binding and loosing in Lk. 13:16 in the 



description of the woman bent with a spirit of infirmity for eighteen years. There is 
probably a play on words here which underlines the hypocrisy of those who com- 
plained that Jesus had healed on the > sabbath. For the same word is used of those 
who untie their oxen and asses to lead them to water on the sabbath (v. 15). Jesus put 
the question to them: “And ought not this woman, a daughter of Abraham whom 
Satan bound for eighteen years, be loosed from this bond on the sabbath day?” 

The same vb. is used in the case of the healing of the deaf man with an impediment 
in his speech: “And his ears were opened, his tongue was released, and he spoke 
plainly” (Mk. 7:35; > Heal; > Deaf, Dumb; > Magic, art. mageia nT 5). V. Taylor 
sees in Mk.’s language no more than a figurative description of the cure (The Gospel 
according to St. Mark, 1955, 355). But A. Deissmann maintains that ho desmos tes 
glosses, “the bond of the tongue”, was a technical expression illustrating the idea that 
such impediment of the speech was the work of demonic influences (Light from the 
Ancient East, 1927 *, 304-8). 

4. lyo has the sense of break, break up and thus destroy, in a number of passages. 
In Rev. 5:2 the scroll of ongoing history, held by God who is seated on his throne, is 
sealed with seven seals which no one is worthy to open and break (— Number, art. 
hepta). However, “the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has conquered, 
so that he can open the scroll and its seven seals” (Rev. 5:5; cf. chs. 6 f. for the open- 
ing of the seals). 

Acts 27:41 tells of the breaking up of the stern of the ship on which Paul was 
bound for Rome, whereas Acts 13:43 refers to the breaking up of a meeting of the 
synagogue at Antioch in Pisidia. On Jn. 2:19 and Eph. 2:14 see 6 (b) below. 

On 2 Pet. 3:10—12 which describes the final conflagration see J. N. D. Kelly, The 
Epistles of Peter and of Jude, BNTC, 1969, 363-68. Kelly suggests that the present 
passive participle in v. 11 (which he translates as “‘are disintegrating”) either “has a 
future force suggested by the context, or (more probably) the writer deliberately 
chooses it so as to highlight, by its suggestion that the process of dissolution has 
already started, the immediacy of his summons” (op. cit., 366). For the idea of the 
“elements” (stoicheia) melting cf. Isa. 34:4; 43:19; Test. Lev. 4:1; 2 Clem. 16:3. The 
proclamation of a ~ new — heaven and — earth goes back to Jesus himself (Matt. 
19:28; cf. Mk. 14:25; Lk. 22:30). Paul saw the present creation as groaning in travail 
in expectation of a new order (Rom. 8:19—22). The new heaven and earth are pic- 
tured in Rev. 21 f. The vision of a new heaven and earth is proclaimed by Isa. 65:17; 

5. lyo in the sense of loosing or freeing from > death and - sin is found in Acts 
2:24 and Rev. 1:5 respectively. In the former case it is applied to the resurrection of 
Jesus: “But God raised him up, having loosed the pangs of death [lysas tas odinas 
tou thanatou|, because it was not possible for him to be held by it” (Acts 2:24). On 
the imagery of the cords of Sheol and death cf. 2 Sam. 22:6; Pss. 18:4 ff.; 
116(114):3; Job 39:2 LXX. 

Rev. 1:5 relates remission of sin to the death of Jesus in the phrase “‘and has freed 
us from our sins by his blood [kai lysanti hemas ek ton hamartion hemon en to 
haimati autou|” (— Blood; > Reconciliation). The AV follows the TR v./. elousen 
(“washed us”) instead of the better attested elysen. This may have arisen through a 
failure to understand the Hebraic use of en (lit. “in” but here meaning “by’’) to 
denote a price (Metzger, 731). Both ideas are paralleled elsewhere in the book: 


washing robes in the blood of the ~ Lamb (Rev. 7:14); ransoming men by his blood 
(Rev. 5:9). But the context fits ‘‘the conception of redemption as a new exodus of the 
people of God. The beatitude of verse 4 itself expounds the name of God made 
known to Moses before the exodus. The doxology celebrates the greater redemption 
of which the first exodus is an anticipation. The sacrifice of the Lamb of God in- 
troduces an emancipation from the slavery of sin such as the sacrifice of the 
passover-lamb could only foreshadow” (G. R. Beasley-Murray, The Book of 
Revelation, New Century Bible, 1974, 57). 

6. lyo is found in a variety of senses in connexion with the institutions of Judaism. 
In each case the divine origin of the institution is recognized either explicitly or im- 
plicitly. But the coming of Jesus demands a fresh understanding in the form either of 
a renewed attitude to what still stands or the realization that what was formerly 
regarded as valid and binding is now superseded. 

(a) The Sermon on the Mount contains the statement: ‘“‘Think not that I have 
come to abolish the law and the prophets [me nomisete hoti elthon katalysai ton 
nomon e tous prophetas]; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them [ouk 
elthon katalysai alla plerosai|. For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass 
away l[parelthe], not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accom- 
plished [iota hen e mia keraia ou me parelthe apo tou nomou heos an panta genetai\. 
Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, 
shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven [hos ean oun lyse mian ton entolon 
touton ton elachiston kai didaxe houtos tous anthropous elachistos klethesetai en te 
basileia ton ouranon]; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great 
in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of 
the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 

T. W. Manson represents an older critical position on this passage. He sees no 
reason “why Jesus should not have uttered” the saying in v. 17 (which in form 1s 
paralleled by Matt. 10:34) (The Sayings of Jesus as Recorded in the Gospels ac- 
cording to St. Matthew and St. Luke, [1937] 1949, 153 f.). The passage is included 
in the Gospel because Palestinian Jewish Christians were sensitive to the Jewish at- 
titude to the > law which was fundamental to the national heritage. “The difference 
between the teaching of Jesus and orthodox Jewish doctrine must be shown to be due 
not to heresy on the part of Jesus but to His deeper and fuller understanding of the 
Law. His pronouncements, so far from upsetting the Law, bring out its true meaning 
and purpose” (op. cit., 153). Manson shows that the attitude of Jesus here is essen- 
tially the same as that in Mk. 7:6—13; 10:1—12: 11:15—19; Lk. 11:45—52, in which 
Jesus upholds the intention and spirit of the law in contrast with the scribal inter- 
pretations which stultify its demands. 

However, Manson thinks that the passage in its present form makes Jesus too 
sympathetic towards orthodox Judaism. He thinks that v. 18 cannot be attributed to 
Jesus in the light of such a passage as Mk. 10:1—12 (op. cit., 154). In reply, it may be 
pointed out that the latter passage which concerns — divorce is not critical of Moses 
in allowing divorce even though it implies violating the creation ordinance of 
marriage (Deut. 24:1—4; cf. Gen. 1:27; 2:24). Rather, the Mosaic law caters for a 
contingency brought about by man but which is contrary to the divine purpose in in- 



Sstituting marriage: “For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this com- 
mandment” (Mk. 10:5). Hence, Mk. 10:1—12 is not a proof of an attitude to the law 
on the part of Jesus different from the one attributed to him in this whole passage. 
His teaching on divorce upheld precisely the creation ordinance on marriage and 
Mosaic provision for divorce. 

A parallel to Matt. 5:18 occurs in another context in Lk. 16:17, both of which 
passages Manson attributes to Q: “But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, 
than for one dot [keraian] of the law to become void.” The preceding verses in Lk. 
concern the law and the prophets being preached until John the Baptist, and the 
following verse pronounces as adultery any marriage contracted after divorce. Man- 
son thinks that the Lucan form was nearer the original and that it was intended to be 
ironic, referring to the attitude of the scribes. He claims that the keraia (EVV “tittle”, 
“dot’’) was not in fact part of the law itself, but stood “most probably” for scribal or- 
naments added to certain Heb. letters (op cit., 135; cf. SB I 248 f.). The rabbis gave 
them the terms gésah or qgés, thorn, taga’ or keter, crown, and n‘quddah, point. The 
term “crown” would thus give added point to the idea of falling from the law. 
However, these strokes formed part of the actual consonantal letter and served to 
distinguish the one from the other. The iota (EVV “jot”, “dot”, “iota”) was the Heb. 
letter YOd (v) which was the smallest letter of the Heb. alphabet (cf. SB I 247 f. for 
rabbinic pronouncements on the letter). The letter was often omitted in Heb. and 
Aram. texts. Another possibility for the keraia is that it denotes the “hook (letter)’, 
1.e. Waw (w) which was also sometimes dispensed with (A. H. McNeile, The Gospel 
according to St. Matthew, 1915, 59). The Waw, when placed in front of a word 
means “and”. Both letters could also be used as vowels (Yod = y; Waw =U, or = 
6), but unlike other vowels they would be written in the unpointed text (i.e. the nor- 
mal text of the time which was written with consonants only). How such a text is 
read (i.e. whatever vowels are read into the text) obviously can make a considerable 
difference to the meaning. Whatever particular ideas may lie behind these terms, 
Manson would seem to be wrong in his interpretation of the evidence presented by 
SB in thinking that the keraia was a purely ornamental stroke which had no bearing 
on what the letter was actually meant to be. Although the stroke was a small one, it 
made a significant difference to the meaning of the text. And in view of what we 
know from elsewhere of Jesus’ attitude to the law, the verse is best interpreted as an 
affirmation of the abiding significance of the law. 

This last point is supported by the final statement of the verse about the necessity 
of fulfilment which is a recurrent theme especially in Matt. (— Fullness, art. pleroo 
NT). The precise significance of this statement has been variously interpreted. The 
NEB gives the paraphrase: “till all that must happen has happened.” W. D. Davies 
gives it an eschatological interpretation (“Matthew 5:17, 18”, in Mélanges Bibliques 
en l’honneur d’A. Robert, 1957, 428—56; reprinted in Christian Origins and Judaism, 
1962, 31—66, from which quotations are taken). Davies holds that the phrase heos an 
panta genetai “in its present Matthaean form may well go back to Jesus” (op. cit., 
65), and that it was not the Jewish-Gentile conflict of the early church which was 
responsible for this passage but the actual ministry and purpose of Jesus. Davies 
suggests that the phrase means: “that while this present order endures (ho ouranos 
kai he ge) the old Law remains in force (although signs that it is to pass are already 
given during the Ministry and, indeed, for the new Messianic community it was 


already in process of passing), but once the obedience of Jesus has finally issued in 
death and the New Covenant has thus been fully inaugurated (because the Ministry 
itself is 1ts partial inauguration) then the old Law ceases to have authority” (op. cit., 
60 f.). The difficulty with this view is the strain it puts on the clause “till heaven and 
earth pass away” which it identifies with the period of time up to the death of Jesus. 
The phrase does indeed imply the continued validity of the law for the duration of the 
present order until whatever is in the law is accomplished. But it implies that the pre- 
sent order will continue until the end of time and not the death of Jesus which is not 
mentioned in the passage (cf. A. M. Honeyman, “‘Matthew v. 18 and the Validity of 
the Law”, NTS 1, 1954-55, 141 f.). The comment of R. Banks on Matt. 5:17 ap- 
pears to fit the context much better: ‘“‘This ‘fulfilment’ takes place not in the first in- 
stance through his suffering and death as some have sought to maintain, but in his 
teaching and practice, though these, of course, ultimately culminated in the Cross. It 
is to that ministry that the Law ‘prophetically’ pointed, and it is only in so far as it 
has been taken up into that teaching and completely transformed that it lives on” 
(Jesus and the Law in the Synoptic Tradition, Society for New Testament Studies 
Monograph Series 28, 1975, 242). 

Manson suggests that lyse (“relaxes”, i.e. “one of the least of these com- 
mandments”’, v. 19) represents the hiphil of natar which means to free, untie, loose in 
the OT and also to permit, declare permitted (Shabb. 4a), and to free, surrender, out- 
law, proscribe (San. 40b) in rabbinic Heb. The context suggests that the command- 
ments referred to are those of the law (v. 18; cf. D. Hill, The Gospel of Matthew, New 
Century Bible, 1972, 118) rather than those of Jesus which follow (v. 41; cf. G. D. 
Kilpatrick, The Origins of the Gospel according to St. Matthew, 1946, 25f.). The Gk. 
text of Matt. contains a play on words between katalyo, destroy, demolish, do away 
with, abolish, and lyo, relax, which Hill paraphrases as “to show by example and 
teaching that a commandment was obsolete” (op. cit., 119). In v.17 Jesus 
emphatically states that he has not come to katalysai the law and the prophets; in v. 
19 he gives dire warning to anyone who would /yse the least of these commandments. 
V. 20 relates this to the scribes and Pharisees, and the Sermon proceeds to give ex- 
amples of how commandments have been relaxed: murder and anger (Matt. 5:21 ff.; 
cf. Exod. 20:13; Deut. 5:17; 16:8); adultery and lust (Matt. 5:27 ff.; cf. Exod. 20:14; 
Deut. 5:18); divorce and adultery (Matt. 5:31 ff.; cf. Deut. 24:1-4; Matt. 19:9; Lk. 
16:18; Mk. 10:11 f.; 1 Cor. 7:10 f.); swearing (Matt. 5:33—37; cf. Lev. 19:12; Num. 
30:3; Deut. 23:21; Matt. 23:16—22; Jas. 5:12); justice and revenge (Matt. 5:38—42; 
cf. Exod. 21:24; Lev. 24:20; Deut. 19:21; Prov. 24:29; Lk. 6:29 f.; Rom. 12:17; 1 
Pet. 2:19; 3:9); loving one’s neighbour (Matt. 5:43 ff.; cf. Lev. 19:18; Prov. 25:21 f.; 
Lk. 6:27 f., 32-36 — the OT did not enjoin hating one’s enemy, which was a mark of 
sectarian Judaism perhaps taught by a Targum, M. Smith, “Matt. v. 43: ‘Hate Thine 
- Enemy’”, HTR 45, 1952, 71 ff.; W. D. Davies, The Setting of the Sermon on the 
Mount, 1964, 245 ff.). In all these points Jesus, far from relaxing the law, ratifies it 
and applies it to man’s inner attitudes as well as his outward acts. For Jesus’ teaching 
on the law elsewhere in Matt. see also 7:12; 11:13; 22:40. For his denunciation of 
those who make a mockery of the law by their hypocrisy see Matt. 15:1—11; 

A redaction-critical approach to this whole subject is given by G. Barth in 
*“Matthew’s Understanding of the Law”, in G. Bornkamm, G. Barth and H. J. Held, 



Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew, 1963, 58—164. Barth claims that Matt. 
5:17 ff. “obviously stem from the Jewish-Christian congregation and are directed 
against a tendency to abandon the law, a representative place and a programmatic 
meaning. Along with the unabridged validity of the Torah the interpretation of the 
scribes is also axiomatically binding for him. This is seen in the antitheses that follow, 
where, above all, there is no question of setting Torah and scribal interpretation over 
against each other, but what was said ‘to them of old time’ is at times quoted in the 
form which was self-evident to the Jew, namely that which tradition gave to the word 
of Scripture. In fact, Matt. 23.2-grants to the scribes and Pharisees that they sit on 
the kathedra of Moses; their teaching is not attacked but declared to be binding 
(23.3). What is attacked is the discrepancy between what they teach and what they 
do, their hypocrisy (23.4 ff.; 6.1 ff.)” (op. cit., 24). 

The difficulty with this view is that it is too wholesale. Although Barth goes on to 
take note of the criticism of tradition in Matt. 15:3—9 (par. Mk. 7:6—13, Lk. 11:39 
ff.) which condemned the scribes and Pharisees not for failing to keep their tradition, 
but “for the sake of your tradition, you have made void the word of God” (Matt. 
15:6, cf. 9 quoting Isa. 29:13 and par.), he fails to see the bearing of this for Matt.’s 
presentation of Jesus’ attitude to the law. Similarly he fails to appreciate the 
significance of Jesus’ denunciation of the > blind leaders of the blind (Matt. 15:14), 
and the warning against the — leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees (Matt. 16:6, 
11) which he admits to be their teaching. If we study these later pasages alongside 
Matt. 5, a consistent picture emerges. Jesus is presented not only as one who upholds 
the law, but as one who insists that the law must be rightly interpreted and applied. 
To that extent the true disciple is also a grammateus, scribe (Matt. 23:34), but one 
who has to be “trained for the kingdom of heaven”’, so that he might bring out of his 
treasure things old and new (Matt. 13:52; > Possessions, art. thesauros NT 1 (f); > 
Scribe, art. grammateus). The point is that not all interpretation and application are 
wrong. Jesus and the disciples engage in it. It is wrong, however, where it fails to 
bring out the true meaning of the law and when it substitutes human tradition for the 
word of God. Barth is clearly wrong in claiming that, according to Matt., scribal in- 
terpretation is “axiomatically binding”. The antitheses of Matt. 5 distinguish sharply 
between the intention of Scripture and accepted interpretations. The root difference 
between the two is formulated in Matt. 5:19 f. which focuses on two concepts. On 
the one hand, misguided interpretation is seen as relaxing (/yse) the commandments. 
On the other hand, this is in the last analysis a question of — righteousness 
(dikaiosyne). A man’s attitude to the commandments determines his place in the 
kingdom; because of their attitude, which involves a fundamental lack of 
righteousness, the scribes and the Pharisees are excluded from the kingdom. 
Moreover, the disciple is not exempt from the same danger. 

The phrase “least in the kingdom of heaven” may be compared with Paul’s 
description of himself as “the least of the apostles” (1 Cor. 15:9), but it is impossible 
to establish any literary interdependence. In any case, the underlying Aram. in Matt. 
could mean “little” (cf. also Matt. 11:11). Later rabbinic thought distinguished be- 
tween “heavy” and “light” commandments (Sifre Deut. 187, 108b), but the more 
rigid: school of Shammai refused to draw such a distinction (D. Hill, op. cit., 119; cf. 
Jas. 2:10). It is sometimes suggested that Matt.’s presentation of Jesus’ attitude to the 
law is designed to be an anti-Pauline counterbalance to Paul’s denigration of the law, 



whether the latter be real or apparent (on Paul’s teaching > Law, art. nomos NT 2). 
But in fact there is an affinity between the two positions (cf. Matt. 5:17 f., 485 22:40; 
with Rom. 3:31; 1 Cor. 2:6; Gal. 5:14; cf. A. W. Argyle, “ ‘M’ and Paul’, ExpT 81, 
1969-70, 340 ff.). Moreover, Matt.’s presentation of Jesus’ understanding of the law 
does not differ essentially from that presented by the other Gospels, as may be seen 
from the parallels already noted. Clearly, of all the evangelists, Matt. is the one most 
concerned to articulate Jesus’ position on the law. But, as Banks concludes, 
“Matthew is not imposing upon the tradition a weight that it cannot bear, but 
merely drawing out the specific consequences of that which is present in it” (op. 
cit., 251). 

(b) lyo is twice used in connexion with the > temple. In Jn.’s account of the cleans- 
ing of the temple the Jews ask for a sign of Jesus’ authority. “Jesus answered them, 
‘Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up [/ysate ton naon touton kai en 
trisin hemerais egero auton]|’ ” (Jn. 2:19). Commenting on the Jews’ remark that the 
temple took forty-six years to build, Jn. points out that Jesus was referring to “the 
temple of his body” (v. 21), which the disciples understood after the resurrection and 
which in turn caused them to believe “the scripture and the word which Jesus had 
spoken” (v. 22). At his trial before the chief priests, elders and scribes, false witnesses 
claimed: “We heard him say this, ‘I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, 
and in three days I will build another, not made with hands [ego katalyso ton naon 
touton ton cheiropoieton kai dia trion hemeron allon acheiropoieton oikodomeso|’ ” 
(Mk. 14:58; cf. the abbreviated par. Matt. 26:61 which also has katalyso). The 
destruction of the temple itself is foretold in Mk. 13:2 par. Matt. 24:2, Lk. 21:6. 
Dodd suggests that Jn.’s use of the imperative vb. with a conditional sense (i.e. “If 
you destroy ...’) and the unliterary en trisin hemerais point to a primitive Semitic 
form of the saying (The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, 1953, 302). Bultmann 
points out that /yo and katalyo are often used for the destruction of buildings (Matt. 
27:40; Mk. 13:2; 14:58; 15:29; Acts 6:14, referring to the false witnesses and the 
onlookers at the crucifixion) as is egeiro for constructing them (The Gospel of John, 
1971, 125). He suggests that there is more than just a conditional clause implied 
here; it is “cast in the ironic imperative of the prophetic style” (cf. Amos 4:4; Isa. 8:9 
f.). The saying implies that Jesus’ own person has already replaced the temple as the 
divinely appointed place of meeting between God and man. It further implies that 
Jewish disobedience is directly responsible for the destruction of this temple, just as it 
was for the destruction of the first one (2 Ki. 25:9, 13-17). It may be noted that it 
was the false witnesses who accused Jesus of threatening to destroy the temple. The 
theme of misunderstanding is a motif in Jn. (cf. 2:20; 3:3 f.: 4:10 ff., 32 f.; 6:32 ff.; 
7:34 ff.; 14.4 f., 7 ff, 22 ff.; 16:17 f.). | 

Eph. 2:14 uses lyo to make a rather different point: “For he is our peace, who has 
made us both one, and has broken down the dividing wall of hostility [kai to 
mesotoichon tou phragmou lysas|.” The term mesotoichon occurs only here in the 
NT. It is rare in secular Gk. and is not found at all in the LXX. It means a partition 
or dividing wall, and evidently refers to the stone wall in the temple with pillars 
“declaring the law of purity, some in Greek, and some in Roman letters, That no 
foreigner should go within that sanctuary” (Josephus, War 5, 5 {194]). The context 
of Eph. 2 evidently presupposes some knowledge of Jewish practices among the Gen- 
tiles of Asia Minor, and the climax of the chapter is reached in the assertion that the 



Gentile Christians now grow “into a holy temple in the Lord” (v. 21). V. 14 points 
out that there is no longer a dividing wall between Jewish and Gentile believers before 
God. The reason 1s given in the following verses: “by abolishing in his flesh the law of 
commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in 
place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body 
through the cross, thereby bringing the hostility to an end” (Eph. 2:15 f.; + Recon- 
ciliation, art. kKatallasso NT 7). The idea of the law as a protecting wall against the 
Gentiles is expressed in Aristeas 139: “Now our Lawgiver being a wise man and 
specially endowed by God to understand all things, took a comprehensive view of 
particular detail, and fenced us round with impregnable ramparts and walls of iron, 
that we might not mingle at all with any of the other nations, but remain pure in body 
and soul, free from all vain imaginations, worshipping the one Almighty God above 
the whole creation.” In contrast with the Gospels where Jesus never actually says 
that he will destroy the temple, in Eph. 2:14 he is in fact the subject of the vb. The 
destruction of the dividing wall between Jewish and Gentile believers is the result of 
his reconciling death. 

(c) In Jn. 5:18 lyo is used of breaking the > sabbath: “This was why the Jews 
sought all the more to kill him, because he not only broke the sabbath | hoti ou monon 
elyen to sabbaton| but also called God his Father, making himself equal with God.” 
The occasion was the healing of the paralytic by the pool of Bethzatha. Jesus defen- 
ded his action by claiming: ““My Father is working still, and I am working” (Jn. 
5:17). To the Jews the reply sounded like Adam’s sinful attempt to be like God (Gen. 
3:5 f.). But the answer is intended to show that there is a sense in which God is work- 
ing on the sabbath both in general in sustaining the world and in particular in the 
case of this healing, in which Jesus is co-operating with the Father. 

(d) The same incident is taken up again, but this time with reference to the law, in 
Jn. 7:23: “If on the sabbath a man receives circumcision, so that the law of Moses 
may not be broken [hina me lythe ho nomos Moyseos|, are you angry with me 
because on the sabbath I made a man’s whole body well?” There is an irony between 
the rite of circumcision performed on the male sexual organ which inevitably causes 
some pain and suffering and the healing of the whole body which banishes suffering. 
Jesus’ stance implies that, just as in healing he was not breaking the sabbath, he is 
also not breaking the law. 

The point is extended to scripture in Jn. 10:35 f.: “If he called them gods to whom 
the word of God came (and scripture cannot be broken [kai ou dynatai lythenai he 
graphe}), do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, 
“You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?” The statement about 
“gods” is an allusion to the previous v. which contains a quotation from Ps. 82(81):6, 
“You are gods,” which agrees with both the MT and the LXX. The passage has been 
the subject of considerable discussion (cf. L. Morris, The Biblical Doctrine of 
Judgment, 1960, 34 ff.; and The Gospel according to John, NLC, 1971, 525 f.). J. A. 
Emerton has suggested that the “gods” in the Ps. “were regarded as angels by the 
Jews, but as gods by the gentiles”, and that the passage is not conclusive evidence 
that in the OT men could be called “god” (“Some New Testament Notes”, JTS New 
Series 11, 1960, 329-32). But Morris objects that this interpretion does less than 
justice to the context of the Ps. A. T. Hanson takes seriously the rabbinic view that 
the Ps. was spoken to Israel by God at Sinai (“John’s Citation of Psalm Ixxxi’’, NTS 


11, 1964-65, 158-62). He thinks that Jn. believed that the Ps. was uttered by the 
pre-existent Word: “if to be addressed by the pre-existent Word justifies men in being 
called gods, indirect and mediated though that address was (coming perhaps through 
Moses, certainly written down only through David), far more are we justified in ap- 
plying the title Son of God to the human bearer of the pre-existent Word, sanctified 
and sent by the Father as he was, in unmediated and direct presence” (op. cit., 161). 
Disagreement with this view has come from M. de Jonge and A. S. van der Woude 
who draw attention to the Qumran scroll 11Q Melchizedek in which > Melchizedek 
is regarded as the speaker of Ps. 82 and evil angels as addressees (“11Q Melchizedek 
and the New Testament”, N7S 12, 1965—66, 301—26), and also from Emerton who 
claims the scroll as support for his view (“Melchizedek and the Gods: Fresh 
Evidence for the Jewish Background of John x. 34-36”, JTS’ New Series 17, 1966, 
393-401). But Hanson has replied to these criticisms and claims that his own 
position is vindicated (“John’s Citation of Psalm Ixxxii Reconsidered” (NTS 13, 
1966-67, 363-67). 

The RSV takes kai ou dynatai lythenai he graphe as a parenthesis, but Morris 
thinks it better to see it as dependent upon the previous ei (“if”) which would then 
introduce two certainties as premises for the conclusion: if the passage calls men 
“gods” and if Scripture cannot be broken, then a fortiori is it proper for Jesus to 
claim to be “the Son of God” (v. 36). This is in fact confirmed by his — works “that 
you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father” (v. 
37; cf. v. 32). The works justify the title, pointing to the relationship with the Father. 
Morris suggests that the idea of Scripture being broken means that it “cannot be 
emptied of its force by being shown to be erroneous” (The Gospel according to John, 
527). He cites in support Jn. 5:18; 7:23; Matt. 5:19. R. E. Brown follows R. 
Jungkuntz in holding that /yo is to be contrasted with pleroo, i.e. to keep from being 
fulfilled as opposed to being fulfilled (The Gospel according to John, 1, Anchor Bible, 
1966, 404; cf. R. Jungkuntz, “An Approach to the Exegesis of John 10:34—36”, 
Concordia Theological Monthly 35, 1964, 556-65). In rabbinic usage battel, nullify, 
render futile, appears to be the Aram. equivalent of lyo. Thus in Jn. 7:23 it means 
that a man receives circumcision on the sabbath, so that the fulfilment of the law will 
not be frustrated. The reason why judges are called “‘gods” in Ps. 82 is that they have 
the office of administering God’s judgment as “sons of the Most High”. In the con- 
text of the Ps. the men in question have failed to do this, and the Ps. ends by calling 
on God himself to arise and judge the earth. Perhaps the use of the quotation in Jn. 
10 implies that this is now what is happening in the person of Jesus in his confronta- 
tion with the Jews. If this is so, then the breaking of Scripture in Jn. 10:34 is not sim- 
ply a matter of showing Scripture to be erroneous. It is a claim that the Ps. finds 
fulfilment in Jesus. Whereas the Jews were accusing Jesus of blasphemy (vv. 33, 36), 
they were in fact committing it themselves. In trying to arrest him (v. 39) and in dis- 
regarding the testimony of his works (vv. 32, 38), they were judging unjustly like the 
judges in Ps. 82:2. In failing to appreciate how these works benefited the weak and 
needy and in not attempting to do anything about it, they were acting like the unjust 
judges of the Ps. (Ps. 82:4; cf. 3). In so doing, they showed that they had “neither 
knowledge nor understanding”, and were walking about “in darkness”, as the 
Psalmist had said (Ps. 82:5). On the other hand, Jesus fulfilled the rdle of a true judge 
as a “god” and “son of the Most High”, which in the Ps., as in the OT, was not sim- 



ply a matter of delivering judgment in court, but included the wider aspect of ad- 
ministering the community in righteousness. 

It is sometimes suggested that the reference to Scripture in Jn. 10:35 is an 
argumentum ad hominem which did not represent Jesus’ own view of Scripture, but 
was a premise that Jesus knew the Jews accepted. It was therefore an adroit way of 
winning an argument by turning the tables on his opponents. But, as B. B. Warfield 
contends, the argument is not ad hominem but e concessu: “Scripture was the com- 
mon ground with Jesus and His opponents” (The Inspiration and Authority of the 
Bible, 140). This appeal to the authority of Scripture and its fulfilment is in line with 
other appeals testified to in various strata of the Gospels (cf. Jn. 5:39; 12:14; 13:18; 
17:12; Matt. 26:31, 54; Mk. 9:12 f.; 14:27; Lk. 20:17; 24:25; see Warfield, op. cit., 
141-65, for discussion of these and other passages). Moreover, if the above inter- 
pretation of /ythenai in relation to Ps. 82 is correct, then the point of the quotation is 
to show not only that the Ps. offers formal precedent for speaking of a man as a 
“god”, but that there is a material fulfilment of the whole Ps. in the person of Jesus in 
his confrontation with his unrighteous opponents who were presuming to judge him. 

(e) The binding and loosing with which Peter was authorized in Matt. 16:19 and 
which was given to the disciples and the church at large in Matt. 18:18 stands in con- 
trast with rabbinic usage (cf. deo =:Aram., “sar, bind; vo = Aram. §¢ra’, loose). 
The authority of the rabbis as teachers was shown by their being able to forbid or 
allow certain things. They were able to excommunicate, i.e. exclude a person from 
the synagogue, though this is relatively seldom mentioned in rabbinic writings. Their 
decisions claimed to have validity in heaven, i.e. with God (SB I 738 ff.; 702 f.). On 
the nature of the authority entrusted to the church > Bind; > Open, art. kleis NT 3. 
Clearly it is an authority which is quite independent of any Jewish institutions, but 
which has its own God-given power. 

(f) yo and the unique noun /ysis occur in 1 Cor. 7:27 in connexion with > 
divorce: “‘Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free [dedesai gynaiki; me zetei 
lysin|. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage [/elysai apo gynaikos; me 
zetei gynaika].” D. Daube points out that lysis, ““release’’, is a somewhat untechnical 
word for divorce (The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism, 1956, 363), as com- 
pared with Paul’s use of chorizesthai of the wife who “separates” from her husband 
and aphienai of the husband who “dismisses” his wife, which corresponds to Jewish 
usage (cf. 1 Cor. 7:10 f.; > Reconciliation, art. kKatallasso NT 8). Perhaps Paul was 
using a more general term which would cover not only formal divorce but separation 
and even the death of the marriage partner. However, apolyo is used of divorce 
(Matt. 5:31 f. par. Lk. 16:18; Matt. 19:3—9 par. Mk. 10:2—12). C. K. Barrett claims 
that 1 Cor. 7:27 “contains Paul’s advice on what, in the present circumstances, it is a 
good thing for a man to do; but it is in no sense a strict ruling which all must obey” 
(The First Epistle to the Corinthians, BNTC, 1968, 175). On the other hand, the rul- 
ing is in line with the charge from the Lord, not to separate but to seek reconciliation 
within marriage, and with OT teaching (1 Cor. 7:10 f.; cf. the Gospel passages 
quoted above; > Reconciliation, art. katallasso NT 8). And whilst Paul’s teaching on 
the whole range of marriage questions in | Cor. 7 is clearly conditioned by cir- 
cumstances (cf. vv. 29 ff.), it may be asked whether Paul envisaged those cir- 
cumstances ever being altered except by the parousia. Nevertheless, it is not a sin for 
those who find themselves thus “free from a wife [/elysai apo gynaikos]” (v. 27) to 



marry (v. 28). And this may, indeed, be right in view of the considerations discussed 
in vv. 2—7. For each has his or her particular gift. For fuller discussion > Separate, 
art. chorizo. 

7. Compounds of yo are not infrequent in the NT. 

(a) apolyo (which occurs in cl. Gk. from Homer onwards) means: (i) to set free, 
release, pardon a prisoner (Matt. 27:15—26; Mk. 15:6—15; Lk. 23:16—25; Jn. 18:39; 
19:10, 12; Acts 3:13; 5:40; 16:35 f.; 26:32; 28:18); release a debtor (Matt. 18:27; cf. 
Lk. 6:37); be freed of diseases (Lk. 13:12); (ii) let go, send away, dismiss one’s wife 
or betrothed, divorce (Matt. 1:19; 5:31 f.; 19:3, 7 ff.; Mk. 10:2, 4, 11; Lk. 16:18; cf. 
Deut. 24:1 ff.); of a woman divorcing her husband (Mk. 10:12 which accords with 
Greco-Roman custom, but not with Jewish, cf. Josephus, Ant. 15, 259); (ili) dismiss, 
send away crowds (Matt. 14:15, 22; 15:32, 39; Mk. 6:36, 45; 8:9), an assembly 
(Acts 19:40), and individuals (Matt. 15:23; Lk. 8:38; 14:4; cf. also Mk. 8:3; Acts 
4:23; 15:30, 33); and as a euphemism for let die (Lk. 2:29). 

(b) katalyo (in cl. Gk. from Homer onwards) means: (i) throw down, detach a 
stone from a building (Matt. 24:2; Mk. 13:2; Lk. 21:6), destroy, demolish, dismantle, 
of the temple (Matt. 26:61; cf. 27:40; Mk. 14:58; 15:29; Acts 6:14; see above 6 (b)), 
metaphorically of Paul demolishing the Jewish understanding of salvation and way 
of life (Gal. 2:18), of “the earthly tent”, ie. the human body at death which 
nevertheless leaves the believer with ‘‘a building from God, a house not made with 
hands, eternal in the heavens” (2 Cor. 5:1), tearing down “the work of God”, i.e. the 
church (Rom. 14:20; cf. v. 19) over questions of eating what is unclean; akatalytos 
(from 1st cent. B.C. onwards) is found in the NT only at Heb. 7:16, meaning in- 
destructible hence endless, referring to the life of Jesus, the eternal high priest, for 
Jesus was not appointed by the carnal law which is “a system of earth-bound rules” 
(NEB) but after the order of ~ Melchizedek; (ii) do away with, abolish, annul, make 
invalid, of the law (Matt. 5:17; see above 6 (a)), of the church which Gamaliel said 
would fail, if it was of men, but which could not be overthrown if it was of God’s plan 
(Acts 5:38 f.); (iii) halt G.e. unharness the pack animals), hence to rest, find lodging 
(Lk. 9:12; 19:7). katalyma (2nd cent. B.C. onwards) means generally lodging, but 
more particularly a guest room or dining room (Mk. 15:14; Lk. 2:7; 22:11). 

(c) eklyo (Homer onwards) means to become loose, become weary, become weak, 
of the hungry crowds in the desert (Matt. 15:32; Mk. 8:3), of the Christian’s cer- 
tainty of reaping the harvest of well-doing if he does not grow weary (Gal. 6:9), of 
not losing courage in adversity, for discipline is a sign of sonship (Heb. 12:5 quoting 

Prov. 3:11; cf. also Heb. 12:3). C. Brown 
1 Avtpov (lytron), price of release, ransom, ransom price; 
[ pov | dvtidvtpov (antilytron), ransom, ransom price; Avtpow 

(lytroo), to ransom, redeem; AUtpwoic, dnoAvtpwatis (lytrosis, apolytrosis), redemp- 
tion, deliverance, release; Avtpwtye (lytrotes), redeemer. 

cL lytron (from 5th cent. B.C. on) and antilytron (only post-biblical in secular Gk.) 

denote the means or money for a ransom. The suffix -tron denotes the instrument 
or means by which the action of the vb. is accomplished, i.e. means of releasing, or 
the payment, i.e. price of releasing (D. Hill, Greek Words and Hebrew Meanings: 



Studies in the Semantics of Soteriological Terms, Society for New Testament 
Studies Monograph Series 5, 1967, 49). The plur. /ytra is common. We find also the 
meaning of recompense. Among the Gks. a ransom was often paid to free slaves, but 
the word is seldom found in cultic contexts. /ytroo (from Plato on) means to free by a 
ransom, redeem. It is used only in act. in secular Gk., but is always mid. or pass. in 
biblical Gk. lytrosis and apolytrosis, synonyms meaning freeing, redeeming, are rare 
and found first in Ist cent. B.C. lytrotes, redeemer, is found only in biblical Gk. 
W. Mundle 

oT 1 (a). In the LXX the sing. lytron is found only in Lev. 27:31; Prov. 6:35; 13:8; 

otherwise it is always in plur. In addition to the passages mentioned, /ytron tran- 
slates Heb. koper, covering, also in Exod. 21:30; 30:12; Num. 35:31, 32; Prov. 6:35: 
13:8. koper means the gift in exchange for a life, which according to the sacred law is 
forfeit or has come under the punishment of God. Normally it is not clear whether 
God, or men representing him, i.e. priests, are to be the recipients of the ransom 
money. A ransom was not to be paid for the murderer (Num. 35:31 f.). (On the im- 
portant related vb. kipper > Reconciliation, art. hilaskomai oT 3.) 

(b) lytron is used also to render pidy6n, pidyém, pditiyim, ransom (from paddah, 
ransom, redeem; cf. Num. 3:46—51). In addition it is found in Lev. 19:20 and Num. 
18:15 to strengthen the vb. paddh, stressing the action of redeeming and its price. 
This has to be paid for those, like the first-born of man or animal, which by sacred 
law belong to God (-— First). It can be paid by animal sacrifice (Exod. 13:13, 15; 
34:20) or sometimes by a money payment (Exod. 30:13—16; Num. 3:46—51; 18:15 
f.). The suggestion that 1 Sam. 14:45 implies the ransoming of Jonathan’s life by the 
life of another is highly improbable (cf. H. W. Hertzberg, J & IT Samuel, 1964, 117 
f.). Lev. 19:20 uses lytra for the ransoming of a slave girl. 

(c) lytra also renders the noun g°ullah, redemption (from the vb. ga’al, redeem, 
act as kinsman) in the case of the relative who was both entitled and under obligation 
to act (Lev. 25:24, 26, 51 f.). The redeemer (go’e/) was originally the closest relative 
who, as the avenger of — blood, had to redeem the blood of the murdered victim 
(Num. 35:19, 21, 24, 25, 27; Jos. 20:3, 5) and also the family possession that had 
been sold (Lev. 27:13, 15, 19 f., 31; cf. Jer. 32:7 where the LX X does not use /ytra), 
and even the person whose economic plight had caused him to sell himself to a non- 
Jew (Lev. 25:48 f.). In Lev. 25:26, 51 f. the g’ullah is the price of redemption. In Lev. 
25:24 it means redemption, and in Lev. 25:29, 31 f., 48; Ruth 4:6; Jer. 32:8 it 
signifies the right of redemption. In Ezek. 11:15 “‘your fellow exiles” (RSV), “men of 
your kindred” (RSV mg.) are lit. “men of your redemption (MT ’ansé g°’ullateka)”’. 
In Isa. 45:13 lytra renders m‘hir, purchase price. 

(d) D. A. Leggett points out that the duties prescribed by the OT laws are only 
understandable against the background of the covenant which made Israel Yahweh’s 
unique possession (Exod. 19:5) among whom he dwelt (Exod. 25:8) (The Levirate 
and Goel Institutions in the Old Testament with Special Attention to the Book of 
Ruth, 1974, 292). The land was Yahweh’s and given to Israel through Yahweh’s sav- 
ing intervention as Lord of history. Therefore the land was not to be sold in per- 
petuity (Lev. 25:23), but rather to be redeemed (Lev. 25:24). Yahweh had redeemed 
Israel out of > Egypt, by which act they had become his servants (Lev. 25:37, 55; cf. 
Deut. 15:15). Accordingly the impoverished Israelite who had sold himself into 



slavery was to be redeemed (Lev. 25:55). If he was not redeemed by the appointed 
means, he was to be released in the year of jubilee (Lev. 25:50, 55). 

The latter institution was part of the system of sabbatical years described in Lev. 
25, which decreed that the land should be left fallow every seventh year (cf. Lev. 
26:34-43; 2 Chr. 36:21; Neh. 10:31; Jer. 34:14—22; 1 Macc. 6:49, 53; Josephus, 
Ant. 12, 378; 14, 202). Unattended growth could be gathered by the poor or eaten 
by the beasts (Exod. 23:11; Deut. 15:2—18). Every fiftieth year (i.e. after 7 x 7 sab- 
bath years) was a jubilee (so called from the Heb. ydébel, ram, thence the ram’s horn 
trumpet which heralded the year, cf. Exod. 19:13). The LXX uses aphesis, release. 
Then the sanctions of the sabbatical year were enforced, and debts were remitted and 
slaves released. The institution brought together not only sound ecological and 
humanitarian principles in a primitive society; it grounded them in faith in a God 
who acts for salvation in history. (For critical discussion see J. Lilley, “Jubilee Year’’, 
ZPEB Ill 715 f.; R. North, Sociology of the Biblical Jubilee, 1954; H. Cazelles, VT 
5, 1955, 321-24; W. Hallo, BA 23, 1960, 48 f.; N. Avigad, BASOR 163, 1961, 

(e) Leggett sees the figure of the go’el reflecting that of Yahweh in his relationship 
with Israel which is grounded in the covenant (op. cit., 293 f.). The vb. ga’al and the 
figure of the go’el have particular prominence in the book of Ruth in which Ruth, the 
Moabitess and widowed daughter-in-law of Naomi, accompanies the latter to her 
home town of — Bethlehem. The two are destitute, but Ruth gleans in the field of 
Boaz who is a kinsman (Ruth 3:3). Naomi counsels Ruth to go to Boaz at the 
threshing floor at night. Boaz does not take Ruth at once. There is a nearer kinsman: 
“Remain this night, and in the morning, if he will do the part of the next of kin for 
you, well; let him do it; but if he is not willing to do the part of the next of kin for you, 
then, as the LorD lives, I will do the part of the next of kin for you. Lie down until the 
morning” (3:13). But upon the latter’s refusal before the elders to take Ruth, Boaz 
does so by buying a field from the hand of Naomi (4:5). The background to this is 
the concept of the levirate marriage, according to which it was the duty of a kinsman 
to marry a widow “in order to restore the name of the dead to his inheritance” (4:5; 
— Marriage, art. gameo OT5). 

It should be noted that the LXX tones down the concept of redemption by 
avoiding lytron and cognates in the book of Ruth. Instead, it uses the noun 
anchisteus, kinsman (Ruth 3:9, 12; 4:1, 3, 6, 8, 14) and the vb. anchisteuo, be next of 
kin, act as next of kin, do a kinsman’s office (Ruth 2:20: 3:13; 4:4; 6 f.). 
Nevertheless, the act of buying the field and the deliverance of Ruth and Naomi from 
destitution are integral features of the concept of redemption. The purpose of the 
book of Ruth has been widely debated (cf. O. Eissfeldt, The Old Testament: An 
Introduction, 1965, 477-83; R. K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament, 
1969, 1059-64; L. Morris in A. E. Cundall and L. Morris, Judges, Ruth, TC, 1968, 
239-43). It is widely held to be a tract against Jewish exclusivism. The book closes 
with a brief genealogy tracing — David’s descent from Boaz (Ruth 4:18 ff.). Leggett 
sees in the book the theme of redemptive, messianic typology. “In the actions of 
Boaz as goel we see foreshadowed the saving work of Jesus Christ, his later descen- 
dant. As Boaz had the right of redemption and yet clearly was under no obligation to 
intervene on Ruth’s behalf, so it was with Christ. As Boaz, seeing the plight of the 
poor widows, came to their rescue because his life was governed by Yahweh and his 



laws, so also of the Messiah it is prophesied that his life would be governed by the 
law of God and that he would deal justly and equitably with the poor and with those 
who were oppressed (Ps. 72:2, 4, 12, 13; Isa. 11:4)” (op. cit. 298). 

(f) In the cases discussed so far there is the idea of release through buying back 
either through some act or by an appropriate payment. The plur. /ytra denotes what 
is given in replacement which results in release. The thought that something has to be 
done or paid implies the need to come to terms. But the idea of reconciliation is par- 
ticularly prominent in those passages where /ytra translates koper, price of a life, ran- 
som (Exod. 21:30; 30:12; Num. 35:31 f.; Prov. 6:35; 13:8). This Heb. noun is a 
cognate of the vb. kipper; > Reconciliation, art. hilaskomai oT 3. koper occurs in the 
MT as the price for ransom of a life (Exod. 21:30; cf. 30:16; Job 33:24; 36:18; Prov. 
13:8), a ransom (Num. 35:31 f.; Prov. 6:25; Ps. 49[48]:8, LXX exhilasma, guilt of- 
fering; Isa. 43:3). It means a bribe (1 Sam. 12:3, LXX exhilasma; Amos 5:12), 
where it is perhaps connected with the root idea of covering, i.e. that which covers 
the eyes. In Exod. 30:12 it is the half shekel of the sanctuary paid by all males above 
the age of twenty at the census to avert the plague (— Tax). But the word is not 
found in the Day of Atonement ritual (Lev. 16). For the concept of reconciliation 
in later Judaism — Reconciliation, arts. apokatastasis OT 3 f.; hilaskomai OT 
1 (b), 3 (c), 4; cf. H. Herrmann and F. Biichsel, hileos, hilaskomai etc. TDNT III 
301 ff. 

2. The vb. lytrousthai is found more frequently in the LX X than the noun lytron. 
In the majority of cases Yahweh is the subject. It renders padah, ransom, 42 times: 
Exod. 13:13, 15; 34:20; Lev. 19:20; 27:29; Num. 18:15, 17; Deut. 7:8; 9:26; 
13:5(6); 15:15; 21:8; 24:18; 2 Sam. 4:9; 7:23; 1 Ki. 1:29; 1 Chr. 17:21; Neh. 1:10; 
Pss. 25(24):22; 26(25):11; 31(30):5; 34(33):22; 44(43):26; 49(48)7, 15; 55(54):18; 
71(70):23; 78(77):42; 119(118):134; 130(129):8; Hos. 7:13; Mic. 6:4; Zech. 10:8; 
Isa. 51:11; Jer. 15:21; 31(38):11 (in several of these passages it occurs more 
than once). lytrousthai translates ga’al, redeem, act as a kinsman, 45 times: 
Exod. 6:6; 15:13; Lev. 25:25, 30, 33, 48 f., 54; 27:13, 15, 19 f., 27-31, 33; Pss. 
69(68):18; 72(71):14; 74(73):2; 77(76):15; 103(102):4; 106(105):10; 107(106):2; 
119(118):154; Prov. 23:11; Hos. 13:14; Mic. 4:10; Zech. 3:1; Isa. 35:9; 41:14; 
43:1, 14; 44:22 ff; 52:3; 62:12; 63:9; Jer. 50(27):34; Lam. 3:58 (again in some 
verses more than once). It is also used to translate 7 other words: ‘arap, break the 
neck of an animal (Exod. 13:13?); pallet, deliverance (Ps. 32[31]:1); pasah, part, 
open, snatch away (Ps. 144[143]:10); paraq, tear away a yoke (Lam. 5:8) and the 
Aram. p‘rag (Dan. 4:24); gandah, get, acquire (Exod. 15:16 v.l.); sagab, rise up (Ps. 
59[58]:1); Aram. 5ézib, deliver (Dan. 6:28[27]). There is no corresponding Heb. in 
Sir. 48:20; 49:10; 50:24; 51:2 f.; 1 Macc. 4:11. 

The basic idea of making free by a ransom can be seen in Exod. 34:20; Lev. 
19:20; 25:25; but already in Deut. 7:8; 9:26; 13:5(6), etc. lytrousthai (padah) no 
longer refers to a material price paid, but means the redeeming activity of God, 
which freed Israel from — Egypt, the house of bondage. It is the use of his power in 
the service of his love and faithfulness which redeems from bondage. In Isa. the work 
of God as the Redeemer is stressed (go el, lytroumenos or rhysamenos, deliverer; Isa. 
41:14; 47:4). Here the deliverance is in the first place the freeing of Israel from 
Babylonian captivity and the return of the people. The foreign nations are to receive 
no ransom for them; in fact God gives them as ransom for Israel (Isa. 43:3 f.; 45:13). 



The thought of deliverance rather than the ransom paid is often uppermost (cf. D. 
Hill, op. cit., 54). lytrousthai is used interchangeably in the Pss. for ga’al and padéh 
(Pss. 25[24]:22; 72[71]:14; 119[118]:134, 154). 

D. Hill points out that while the deliverance from Egypt is often described in terms 
of redemption (2 Sam. 7:23; Deut. 7:8; 9:26; 13:5; 15:15; 24:18; 1 Chr. 17:21; Ps. 
78[77]:42), the “redeeming” from exile is not often described by paddh (Isa. 35:10; 
51:11). Moreover, the specific idea of a ransom tends to fall into the background. 
“‘To stress the costliness of the deliverance in terms of Yahweh’s strength and activity 
in order to keep alive the notion of ransom price (cf. Neh. 1:10 and 2 Sam. 7:23) 
would be to place an undue strain on the evidence: wherever there is need to 
emphasise the exercise of Yahweh’s power in saving his people, it is stated explicitly 
in the context. We have no right to read it into every occurrence of the verb in order 
to make the word retain a presumed original and single unchanging sense. The mean- 
ings of words are seldom static and semantic development is often influenced by the 
events of history. It seems probable that the words ga’al and padah which had a 
close association with the idea of releasing slaves and of reclaiming persons and 
things, were taken up into the vocabulary of Israel’s writers as the most suitable 
terms to describe the liberation from slavery of those whom Egypt and Babylon had 
conquered, and the reclaiming by Yahweh into his rightful ownership of ‘the people 
of his possession’. This semantic development does no more than extend and 
emphasise what was already the essential theme of ga’al and paddh in their 
specialised use, namely that of bringing persons into freedom” (op. cit., 55 f.). 

3. In the intertestamental period the expectation of redemption continued (Sir. 
50:24). Since the dominion of the foreigners over Israel continued, the term received 
a political and nationalistic connotation (Pss.Sol. 9:1; 12:6). The Qumran texts also 
stress this aspect (1QM 1:12 f.; 14:5 f.). Redemption was often conceived of in a 
wider sense. Especially in the Pss. the thought is of the individual: God redeems him 
from oppression and wrong (Pss. 31[30]:516]; 72[71]:14; 119[118]:134), and also 
from destruction (Ps. 103[102]:4; Sir. 51:2) and sin (Ps. 130:8). 

4. lytrosis renders g°’ullah in Lev. 25:29, 48, and g‘’ulim in Isa. 63:4. Otherwise 
it translates paddh and its derivatives. In Lev. 25:29, 48 it means the right of redemp- 
tion of property that has been sold. Ps. 49(48):8 states that there is no ransom from 
death. In Isa. 63:4 the judgment on the heathen appears to Israel as a “year of 
redemption”. Ps. 111(110):9 thinks of Israel’s redemption in general, and Ps. 
130(129);7 of redemption from sin. apolytrosis is used in the LXX only in Dan. 
4:34(31) of the freeing of Nebuchadnezzar from his madness. God is twice called 
lytrotes, Redeemer, in the Pss. (19[18]:14; 78[77]:35). lytrotos, redeemable (for Heb. 
g’ullah) occurs only in Lev. 25:31 f. 

5. Judaism reflected much on the OT statements about ransom money. Above all, 
the good deeds of the martyrs appeared as a ransom with atoning power (4 Macc. 
6:28 f.; 17:22; > Reconciliation, art. hilaskomai oT 3 (c), NT 4 (b)). On the other 
hand, it is stressed that there is no ransom for the Gentiles in the final judgment (Bth. 
Enoch 98:10; cf. SB I 750; III 644). 

ga‘al is used only once in the Qumran texts as kinsman or protector (CD 14:16); 
padGh is more important. In 1QH the author praises God for delivering him from his 
enemies (1QH 2:32, 35) and from destruction (1QH 3:19). 1QM calls the com- 
munity “the people of the divine redemption” (1QM 1:12; 14:5) and “the poor of his 



redemption” (1QM 11:9). Cf. also 1QH 17:20; Fragment 45 1:2; 4QpPs37; CD 
16:8; 1QM 11:9; 13:14; 14:10; 15:1; 17:6; 18:11; Fragment 22 4:2; 4QM 8. The 
Same semantic development which Hill observed in the OT appears to have taken 
place in the Dead Sea Scrolls, viz. that padadh means primarily to release, save or 
deliver (D. Hill, op. cit., 56). 

Although ga‘al was avoided in the Qumran writings, it is often used of the exodus 
deliverance in rabbinic literature. Both vbs. are frequent in the Mishnah in cases of 
legal and cultic redemption: ga’al of the redemption of property (Arakhin 9:1—4, 
dealing with the sabbath year and year of jubilee) and of things dedicated to the Lord 
(Arakhin 7:3 ff.); paddh of the redemption of standing corn (Peah 4:7), dough 
(Hallah 3:3), dedicated produce (Terumoth 6:5; Pesahim 2:5), captive slaves 
(Ketuboth 1:2, 4; 3:1), persons from Gentile ownership (Gittin 4:9). Hill points out 
that in these passages the ideas which belong to the use of the words in the Pen- 
tateuch are dominant (op. cit., 57). But the tractate Pesahim (Feast of Passover) 
contains, as might be expected, examples of ga’al used of the exodus deliverance 
(10:5 f.), though none suggest the notion of ransom price in terms of the exertion of 
Yahweh’s power. In rabbinic literature ga’al is applied to Israel’s future deliverance 
when all afflictions will be ended. This is exemplified in the seventh of the Eighteen 
Benedictions which may well date from the Maccabean period: “Look upon our 
afflictions and defend our cause, and redeem us [#g*alend] for thy name’s sake. 
Blessed .art thou, O Lord, the Redeemer [go’el] of Israel” (-— Prayer, art. 
proseuchomai OT 6). The thought here that is uppermost appears to be that of 
deliverance, perhaps with overtones of the avenger of blood. The rabbis used go’el for 
the coming messiah, the redeemer of the glorious future (Hill, op. cit., 58; cf. H. 
Cazelles et al., Moise: L’Homme de Il’Alliance, 1955, for the messiah as a Moses-like 
deliverer). | 

The emphasis on deliverance rather than the ransom price of the later biblical 
writings outside the Pentateuch appears to be continued in the Palestinian 
Apocryphal writings (Sir. 48:20; 49:10; 50:24; 51:2 f.; 1 Macc. 4:11; cf. also Eth. 
Enoch 98:10 where “ransom” could mean “|[way of] deliverance’). In the case of 
Philo, Hill detects the following procedure: “he finds the words in his biblical texts 
and quotes them in his work with the ransom significance which their contexts in 
legal codes required. When he explains the meaning of the passages, the strict ran- 
som sense is missing and the idea of freedom is dominant” (op. cit., 60; Sacr. 114, 
117 ff.; Rer.Div.Her. 44, 124, 186; Spec.Leg. 1, 77; 1, 135; 2, 95; 2, 116, 121 f.; 3, 
145; Omn.Prob.Lib. 114; Congr. 109; Leg.All. 3, 21). 

Apart from the lytron word-group, attention may be drawn to Jewish beliefs about 
the atoning value of suffering and martyrdom in the immediate pre-Christian era (cf. 
Hill, op. cit., 65 f.; A. Biichler, Studies in Sin and Atonement in the Rabbinic 
Literature of the First Century, 1928; 175-89; Moore, Judaism, I, 546—52; S. 
Schechter, Some Aspects of Rabbinic Theology, 1909, 307-11). Traditionally atone- 
ment was achieved through the sacrifices of the cult and the Day of Atonement, but 
after the destruction of the temple and the cessation of sacrifice, it came to be 
thought of in terms of obedience and suffering, especially death. Hill claims that the 
idea of a man’s death atoning for his own sins is not traceable in pre-Christian 
Judaism, but the idea of representative atonement is pre-Christian. Thus Jacob is 
said to have addressed Benjamin: “In thee shall be fulfilled the prophecy of heaven, 


which says that the blameless one shall be defiled for lawless men, the sinless one 
shall die for ungodly men” (Test. Ben. 3:8, cf. Isa. 53; the longer v./. is even more ex- 
plicit). The representative value of suffering is expressed in the old Jewish tradition 
concerning the binding of Isaac (Akedah) which may have influenced Paul’s doctrine 
of atonement (H. J. Schoeps, Paul: The Theology of the Apostle in the Light of 
Jewish Religious History, 1961, 141-49; G. Vermes, Scripture and Tradition in 
Judaism, 1961, 193-227). The deaths of Saul and Jonathan caused God to be en- 
treated for the land (Pes. 27, 174b). The atoning value of the deaths of the martyrs 
features in 2 Macc. 7:37; 4 Macc. 6:28; 17:21 f. (on this — Reconciliation, art. 
hilaskomai oT 3 (c), NT 4 (b)). Both 4 Macc. 2 28 and 17:21 use the rare word 
antipsychon, life given as a substitute. 

NT 1. In the NT lytron is found only in the saying of Jesus which, apart from the in- 

troductory conjunctions, is found with identical wording in Matt. 20:28 and Mk. 
10:45: “even as [hosper, Matt.; “for”, Mk. kai gar] the Son of man came not to be 
served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many [ho hyios tou anthropou 
ouk elthen diakonethenai alla diakonesai kai dounai ten psychen autou lytron anti 
pollon|.” Lk. does not have the saying, but in his narrative of the Last Supper he 
gives the saying: “For which is the greater, one who sits at table, or one who serves? 
Is it not the one who sits at table? But I am among you as one who serves lego de en 
meso hymon eimi hos ho diakonon]” (Lk. 22:27). 

The conclusion has been drawn that the Lucan saying is more original than the 
Marcan. R. Bultmann, for example, sees the Marcan versions as a product of the 
early church in the form of an utterance attributed to the exalted Christ (The History 
of the Synoptic Tradition, 1963, 149). In particular, it “has formed its conception of 
Jesus from the redemption theories of Hellenistic Christianity” (op. cit., 144; cf. W. 
Bousset, Kyrios Christos, [1913], ET 1970, 39). But the theory is indemonstrable, 
and the ascription of prophetic utterances in the early church to the historical Jesus is 
open to serious objections (— Prophet, art. prophetes NT 4). Other exegetes have 
demonstrated the probability of a Palestinian background (cf. J. Jeremias, “Das 
Losegeld fiir viele”, Judaica 3, 1948, 249 ff.; E. Lohse, Martyrer und Gottesknecht, 
1955). This is indicated by the designation of Jesus as > Son of man (cf. Dan. 7:13) 
and the Semitic form of expression (e.g. the use of “many”, Heb. rabbim, instead of 
“all”; cf. the use of “all” in 1 Tim. 2:6 which speaks of Jesus giving himself “as a ran- 
som for all lantilytron hyper panton]”’; > All, art. polloi). 

Mk. 10:45 has often been interpreted in the light of the Suffering Servant of Isa. 
53, especially vv. 10—12: “Yet it was the will of the Lorp to bruise him; he has put 
him to grief; when he makes himself an offering for sin, he shall see his offspring, he 
shall prolong his days; the will of the Lorp shall prosper in his hand; he shall see the 
fruit of his soul and be satisfied; by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my ser- 
vant, make many to be accounted righteous; and he shall bear their iniquities. 
Therefore I will divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with 
the strong; because he poured out his soul to death, and was numbered with the 
transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the 

W. L. Lane notes that “The sacrifice of the one is contrasted with those for whom 
it is made, in allusion to Isa. 53:11 f.” (The Gospel of Mark, NLC, 1974, 384). Here 



too “many” are referred to. This would further underline the Jewish background of 
the thought. But Lane also draws attention to the fact that at Qumran “the many” is 
“a technical term for the elect community, the eschatological people of God” (ibid.; 
cf. R. Marcus, “Mebaqger and Rabbim in the Manual of Discipline vi, 11-13”, JBL 
75, 1956, 298-302; H. Huppenbauer, “rbym, rwb, rb in der Sektenregel (1QS)”, 
ThZ 13, 1957, 136 f.). The thought of Mk. 10:45 seems to combine the sub- 
stitutionary redemption of Isa. 53 by the one on behalf of many with the idea that the 
many are the elect community. 

The link with Isa. 53 has been disputed by some scholars (cf. M. D. Hooker, Jesus 
and the Servant: The Influence of the Servant Concept of Deutero-Isaiah in the New 
Testament, 1959, 74-9; C. K. Barrett, “The Background of Mark 10:45”, in A. J. B. 
Higgins, ed., New Testament Essays: Studies in Memory of Thomas Walter Manson, 
1959, 1-18). It is argued, for example, that Isa. 52:13 and 53:11 speak of “my ser- 
vant” and not the Son of man which recalls rather Dan. 7 and 12:3. The 
reminiscence of the Isaianic Servant in Eth. Enoch 37—71 which refer to the Son of 
man do not make a link with suffering. Isa. 53:10 speaks of an “offering for sin” 
rather than a “ransom”. On the other hand, the idea of a ransom suggested by lytron 
and its cognates is found in Exod. 21:30; 30:12; cf. 21:23; 2 Ki. 10:24; 49[48]:8; 
Isa. 52:3; cf. Josephus, Ant. 14, 107. But what this shows is that there are certain 
verbal dissimilarities when Mk. 10:45 and Isa. 53 are compared, and that the NT 
passage is not based exclusively on any single OT passage. The idea of a guilt offer- 
ing is found in Lev. 5:14—6:7; Num. 5:5—8. The reconciling significance of Jesus’ 
passion which in Mk. 10:45 is designated by the word /ytron corresponds to what in 
Heb. was expressed by the kipper word-group ( — Reconciliation, art. hilaskomai). In 
the earliest form of NT proclamation it was expressed in the formula that “Christ 
died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3). Whereas the aton- 
ing value of the sufferings of the Jewish martyrs is celebrated in 2 Macc. 7:37; 4 
Macc. 6:28; 17:21 f., the present passage offers a parallel and a stark contrast. It 
affirms that atonement is made by suffering, but it implicitly denies that such atone- 
ment was made by the Jewish martyrs. It insists that it is brought about by Jesus 
alone. “With the preposition anti’ [for] Jesus contrasts what he surrenders with what 
he gains. He surrenders his life and obtains the many who are liberated. The thought 
is also in the background that by his death Jesus stands in the place of those who are 
in bondage to sin and death, and suffers in their stead that which sets them free” (A. 
Schlatter, Der Evangelist Matthdus, 1963°, 603 f.). “The genuineness of the saying 
has been much discussed ... but no argument has yet been advanced which is so 
strong as to make it impossible for us to believe that Jesus could have spoken of his 
death in the kind of terms reproduced here — of vicarious and representative suffering 
for his people, in the terms of the old Jewish martyr theology” (D. Hill, The Gospel of 
Matthew, New Century Bible, 1972, 289). 

As Schlatter observes above, the ransom has not only an atoning but also a 
liberating aspect. The many are set free not only from — guilt, but also at the same 
time from its consequences, — death and —> judgment. “Deliverance from guilt and 
deliverance from death is the same process” (Schlatter, op. cit.,.603). In Mk. 8:37 
Jesus puts the question: “For what can a man give in return for his life?” (— Recon- 
ciliation, art. katallasso NT 8). The question finds its answer here in Mk. 10:45. This 
answer stands in sharp contrast to Eth. Enoch 98:10: “And now, know ye that ye 


are prepared for the day of destruction: wherefore do not hope to live, ye sinners, but 
ye shall depart and die; for ye know no ransom; for ye are prepared for the day of 
the great judgment, for the day of tribulation and great shame for your spirits.” The 
same Jesus who completes his service in giving up his life is the Son of man who will 
come in glory (Matt. 25:31). Jesus does not say who will receive the ransom. Since 
Mk. 8:33 pictures Satan as endeavouring to prevent Jesus’ path of suffering, we can 
think only of God in this context. 

2. The rare word antilytron, ransom, which is not found at all in the LXX occurs 
in the NT only at 1 Tim. 2:6 in the context of an exhortation to prayer for all men, 
including kings and those in high positions. For “God our Saviour . . . desires all men 
to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and 
there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself 
as a ransom for all [ho dous heauton antilytron hyper panton\|, the testimony to 
which was borne at the proper time” (1 Tim. 2:4 ff.). The saying points back to Mk. 
10:45. J. Jeremias has shown that the saying differs from the words of Jesus only in 
that it has been stripped of its Semitic linguistic form of expression (““Das Losegeld 
fur viele”, Judaica 3, 1948, 260). C. Spicq points out that the first motive for inter- 
cessory prayer for all men lies in the character of God. The second is based on the 
mission of Jesus Christ (Les Epitres Pastorales, 1947, 59). He points out that 
whereas Mk. 10:45 par. Matt. 20:28 speak of a lytron anti (‘a ransom for’) Paul 
uses a noun which combines the noun and preposition in a single word, which thus 
appears stronger than the simple /ytron, suggesting a ransom which has been com- 
pletely paid, an atonement that has been effected. The use of anti as a prefix may 
even accentuate the notion of exchange (cf. antimisthia, reward, return, in Rom. 
1:27; 2 Cor. 6:13). D. Guthrie comments: “The addition of the preposition anti, 
‘instead of’, is significant in view of the preposition huper, ‘on behalf of’, used after it. 
Christ is conceived of as an ‘exchange price’ on behalf of and in the place of all, on 
the grounds of which freedom may be granted. Yet not all enjoy that freedom. The 
ransom, it is true, has infinite value, but the benefits require appropriation. The apos- 
tle is implying here that since the ransom is adequate for all, God must desire the 
salvation of all” (The Pastoral Epistles, TC, 1957, 72). 

However, the alternative interpretation may be noted which takes the word — all 
(pas) to denote not all, in an absolute and inclusive sense, but all kinds of. On this 
view, Paul is saying that he does not exclude any class of men from salvation (and 
thus from the sphere of intercessory prayer). For he desires all kinds of men (in- 
cluding pagan rulers, whom some Christians might deem to be beyond the pale) to be 
saved. In NT literature pas is used for pantodapos and pantoios which are absent 
from the NT. Other instances of pas in this sense include Matt. 4:23; 23:27; Lk. 
11:42; Acts 2:5; 7:22; 13:10; Rom. 1:18, 29; 7:8; 1 Cor. 1:5; 6:18; 2 Cor. 7:1; 9:8; 
10:5; Eph. 1:3, 8, 21; 4:19; 5:3; Phil. 1:9; 2 Thess. 2:17; Tit. 1:16; 3:1; Heb. 13:21. 
The question may be asked whether the use of the word pas (“all’’) here in the con- 
text of the Gentile mission significantly extends that of the polloi (“many”) in Mk. 
10:45 par. which occurs in a Jewish Palestinian setting. On the one hand, polloi can 
have a more inclusive sense, but the Qumran background suggests that the “many” 
may refer to the elect eschatological community. On the other hand, the “all” in 1 
Tim. 2:6 may mean that Christ gave himself for all men absolutely or for all kinds of 
men. What is clear in 2 Tim. 2:6 is that Paul extends the “many” of the Gospels to 



include not only the Gentiles who have actually responded to the gospel but to pagan 
rulers who at the time might even be hostile. 

Similar thoughts on Christ’s death as a ransom given in love may be found 
elsewhere in Paul. His self-giving in death is grounded in love (Gal. 2:20; Eph. 5:2). 
Believers are bought with a price (time, 1 Cor. 6:20; 7:23), paid to atone from sin 
and its consequences (Gal. 1:4; Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:14). Christ’s death is a propitiation 
(Rom. 3:25) which brings about — reconciliation (2 Cor. 5:18—21). 

The final clause in | Tim. 2:6 (“the testimony to which was borne at the proper 
time”) is not immediately clear. If to martyrion is taken in apposition to the 
preceding statement, it could be understood as referring to the gospel of salvation. 
The noun would thus be a metonymy in which the abstract stands for the concrete, 
the testimony for the thing testified. But the proper meaning of martyrion is not the 
thing testified but the testimony (cf. Heb. 3:5). Spicq, therefore, prefers to see to 
martyrion in apposition to the entire train of thought in vv. 4—6 and “to understand 
that the great expiatory sacrifice of Christ for all is itself the attestation, the great 
sign, the most manifest proof which is as indisputable as a fact, of the will of God to 
save all men” (op. cit., 61). This is the sense of the word in 1 Tim. 6:13. This revela- 
tion and proof of God’s redeeming love was manifested in God’s own appointed time 
(cf. Tit. 1:3; 1 Tim. 6:15; Rom. 5:6; Gal. 4:4). 

3. lytrosis, deliverance, release, redemption, occurs twice in the birth and infancy 
narratives of Lk. and once in Heb. Zechariah, the father of John the Baptist, “was 
filled with the Holy Spirit, and prophesied” at the birth of his son in a psalm which 
begins: “Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, for he has visited and redeemed his 
people” (Lk. 1:68). V. 69 develops this theme in speaking of “the horn of salvation 
[keras soterias| which God has raised up for us in the house of his servant David”, 
and vv. 71 and 73 celebrate this in terms of being “saved [soferian]”’ and “delivered 
[rhysthentas|’’ from our enemies. Similarly, the prophetess Anna gave thanks to God 
on seeing the infant Jesus in the temple “and spoke of him to all who were looking for 
the redemption of Jerusalem” (Lk. 2:38). D. Hill comments: “the word is being used 
in the sense of the long-awaited intervention by God to save and deliver his people 
into freedom and blessing. This applies also to the remark by the Emmaus-road 
pilgrims (Luke 24:21), ‘We had hoped that he was the one to deliver Israel (ho mellon 
lytrousthai Israely ” (Greek Words and Hebrew Meanings: Studies in the Semantics 
of Soteriological Terms, Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 5, 
1967, 67). Hill thinks that the idea of ransoming or purchasing has here completely 
receded, and that the emphasis is entirely on God’s deliverance of his people. Even 
though Zechariah’s psalm goes on to relate this deliverance to the rdle of John in 
preparing the ways of the Lord “to give knowledge of salvation to his people in the 
forgiveness of sins” (Lk. 1:77), the deliverance that Zechariah and Anna appear to 
envisage is one which sees it in terms of the promised restoration of the fortunes of > 
Israel in terms of OT prophecy concerning the historic people of God (cf. Lk. 1:76 
with Mal. 4:5; Lk. 1:78 with Mal. 4:2; Lk. 1:79 with Isa. 9:2). 

It is questionable how far the idea of ransoming is present in Heb. 9:12, though 
clearly atonement is here made by > blood. The death, resurrection and ascension of 
Jesus is here understood in terms of the Day of Atonement ritual of Lev. 16: “But 
when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then 
through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this 


creation) he entered once for all into the Holy Place, taking not the blood of goats 
and calves but his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption [aionian lytrosin 
heuramenos|” (Heb. 9:11 f.). The sacrifices of the Day of Atonement were not strict- 
ly speaking a ransom, although the shedding of blood made propitiation (Lev. 17:11; 
+ Reconciliation, art. hilaskomai). In the light of Heb. 9:22, 25 f., 28, Hill concludes: 
“As the blood of bulls and goats in the Day of Atonement ceremony cleansed and 
freed the assembly of Israel from sin for one year, the blood of the great High Priest 
himself is the means (not the price) of bringing deliverance from sin and a renewed 
relationship with God (v. 14) to all men for ever’ (op. cit., 69). 

4. lytrotes occurs only in Stephen’s speech where it is applied to > Moses: “This 
Moses whom they refused, saying ‘Who made you a ruler and a judge?’ God sent as 
both ruler and deliverer [archonta kai lytroten| by the hand of the angel that ap- 
peared to him in the bush” (Acts 7:35; cf. Exod. 2:14). The point of the argument is 
to show that the Jews’ treatment of Jesus is consistent with the Jews’ attitude to the 
divinely appointed leaders and deliverers down the ages. But, in fact, Moses whom 
the Jews regard as the leader and deliverer par excellence is in this double aspect a 
type of Christ: he is a ruler and deliverer on the one hand, and he was rejected by the 
Jews on the other hand (cf. v. 52). E. Haenchen also points out that “archonta 
matches archegos in 3.15 and 5.31, and lytroten has its counterpart in Luke 24:21” 
(The Acts of the Apostles, 1971, 282). 

5. apolytrosis occurs 10 times in the NT. The sole instance in the Gospels is in Lk. 
21:28. Otherwise it is found 7 times in the Pauline writings and twice in Heb. These 
occurrences attest the Hellenistic preference for the compound form over the simple 
lytrosis. In the Pauline writings it figures largely to designate the deliverance from sin 
and its penalty brought about by the propitiatory death of Christ. In this sense it is a 
present reality grounded exclusively in Christ: “they are justified by his grace as a 
gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 3:24; cf. v. 25 + Recon- 
ciliation, art. hilaskomai); “In him we have redemption through his blood, the 
forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace” (Eph. 1:7); “in 
whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins” (Col. 1:14): ““He is the source of 
your life in Christ Jesus, whom God made our wisdom, our righteousness and 
sanctification and redemption” (1 Cor. 1:30). 

But it also has a future aspect, for the full realization of redemption will only come 
with the parousia: “‘and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first 
fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait for adoption as sons, the redemption of 
our bodies” (Rom. 8:23; cf. Phil. 3:21). The context there is probably that of a 
charismatic enthusiasm which Paul counters by drawing attention to present imper- 
fection (— Prayer, art. entynchano; on this verse see also P. Benoit, “Nous 
gemissons, attendant la délivrance de notre corps”, RSR 39, 1951, 267-80). 
Similarly, Eph. 1:14 sees the present sealing by the — Spirit as the guarantee of our 
inheritance until we acquire possession of it [eis apolytrosin; lit. “unto redemption” |, 
to the praise of his glory.” The sole instance in the Gospels has also a future 
reference: ““Now when these things begin to take place, look up and raise your heads, 
because your redemption is drawing near” (Lk. 21:28; cf. also 18:7 f.; > Present, art. 
The Parousia and Eschatology in the NT). 

In Heb. 9:15 the thought combines the Pauline association of redemption and the 
death of Christ with the characteristic theme in Heb. of the comparison of the new 



covenant with the old: “Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those 
who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has oc- 
curred which redeems them from the transgressions under the first covenant.” In 
Heb. 11:35 apolytrosis is used in the secular sense of “release” (cf. Dan. 4:32 LXX): 
“Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, that they might rise again to a better 
life.” The allusion appears to be the story in 2 Macc. of the mother and her seven 
sons who prefer torture and death to denying the law, expressing their hope in a 
resurrection life (2 Macc. 7:9, 11, 14; for other instances of torture see F. F. Bruce, 
The Epistle to the Hebrews, NLC, 1964, 337 ff.). 

6. The vb. lytrousthai (middle and passive) is found only in three passages. Lk. 
24:21 is noted above (see under 3 above). Tit. 2:14 interprets christologically the 
thought of Ps. 130:8 (cf. also Ezek. 37:23; Deut. 14:2). The passage describes the 
Christian life as renouncing irreligion and worldy passions and living in a godly way, 
awaiting the appearing of Christ, “who gave himself for us to redeem us from all ini- 
quity and to purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good deeds.” 
1 Pet. 1:18 f. refers both to that from which the believer is ransomed and to the 
means of the ransom: “You know that you were ransomed from the futile ways in- 
herited from your fathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, but with 
the precious blood of Christ like that of a lamb without blemish or spot.” The words 
“futile” and “‘vain” are used of idolatry (Lev. 17:7 LXX; Jer. 8:19; Acts 14:15; cf. 
Rom. 1:21), and in a general sense life without God is one of futility and emptiness 
(— Empty, art. mataios). The allusion to silver and gold recalls Isa. 52:3: “You were 
~ sold for nothing, and you shall be redeemed without money” ( > Gold). On > blood 
as the means of redemption see Eph. 1:7; Heb. 9:12, 22; Rev. 1:5; cf. 5:9. The image 
of the > lamb recalls Isa. 53:7. The passover lamb and animal sacrifices were expec- 
ted to be without blemish (Exod. 12:5; 29:1; Lev. 22:17—25; Ezek. 43:22 f.; cf. Heb. 

Other ways of expressing the idea of ransom include that of being bought with a 
price (1 Cor. 6:20; 7:23; > Buy, art. agorazo; — glory, art. time). C. Brown 

pvoual pvouat (rhyomai), rescue, deliver, preserve, save. 

CL rhyomai is a middle deponent vb. found in cl. Gk. from Homer onwards and also 
in inscriptions and papyri. It is used of deliverance and keeping by both the gods 
and men. | 

1. Ajax prayed to “Father Zeus” to save the Achaians from the dark night 
(Homer, J/. 17, 645). “Only Zeus and the other gods saved thee”, cried Achilles to 
Aeneas (J/. 20, 194). Such deliverance extends not only to individuals in battle, but to 
various dangers, afflictions and also the protection of property U/l. 15, 257, 290; 
Hdt. 1, 87 ek tou kakou, “‘from evil”; 5, 49; 9, 76; 4, 187; 6, 7; 7, 217; other in- 
stances in W. Kasch, rhyomai, TDNT VI 1000). 

2. On the human level the vb. is applied to the action of princes in delivering cities 
and countries (Homer, //. 9, 396), women and children (//. 17, 224), the outcast 
(Soph., OC 285). Moreover, it can be used of inanimate objects. Thus, walls (//. 18, 
515), helmets (77. 10, 259), and armour (//. 23, 819) are said to protect. On the other 
hand, Odysseus cannot save his comrades who have destroyed themselves by sin 



(Od. 1, 6f.), and there are cases where not even the gods can save (/I., 15, 141; Od. 
12, 107; Aesch., Sept. 91; cf. W. Kasch, ibid.). 

oT In the LXX rhyomai mostly renders the hiphil form of nasal in the sense of 

rescue, deliver (84 times), the niphal form in the sense of to save oneself (4 times), 
and the hophal form twice. The Gk. vb. > sozo, save, translates nasal only 23 times. 
rhyomai is used 11 times in the later passages of Isa. and also in Gen. 48:16 
to translate ga’al, redeem, buy back, deliver (— lyo oT). It also translates several other 
vbs.: palat in the piel, bring to safety, save (10 times); yaSa‘ in the hiphil, save, 
deliver, set free (7 times; yaSa‘ is translated by sozo 138 times); padadh, redeem (5 
times); halas, save (5 times); nasar, watch, keep guard (twice); pasadh, snatch from 
deliver (once), and the Aram. 5ézib (once). W. Kasch sees two main groups of 
passages. In the first, rhyomai is used in a way corresponding to cl. Gk. usage, except 
that Yahweh fulfils the role which in Gk. literature is ascribed to the gods. In the 
second, a distinctive OT usage may be seen. (On the Heb. terms see further J. F. A. 
Sawyer, Semantics in Biblical Research: New Methods of Defining Hebrew Words 
for Salvation, SBT Second Series 24, 1972.) 

1. The following group of passages exhibits marked similarities with Gk. usage, 
except that the deliverance is seen as the work of Yahweh and not of the gods. The 
Psalmists sing of deliverance from persecutors (Ps. 7:2[1]), wicked neighbours (Ps. 
34(33]:4), false and evil men (Ps. 43[42]:1; cf. Isa. 25:4), those who hate the inno- 
cent (Ps. 69[68]:14), from murder (Ps. 18[17]:29), > blood (Ps. 51[50]:14), the 
sword (Ps. 22[21]:20), the snares of the fowler (Ps. 91[90]:3), death and famine (Ps. 
33[32|:19; cf. Pss. 56[55]:13; 57 [56]:4; 86[85]:13; 89[88]:48; Job 5:20), Sheol (Ps. 
86[85]:13; cf. 56[55]:13; Hos. 13:14; > Hell), the ungodly (Ps. 17[16]:13; cf. 
59[58]:3; 71[70]:4; 97[96]:10), tribulations (Ps. 34[33]:17, 19), and from sins and 
their consequences (Pss. 39[38]:8; 40[39]:13; 79[78]:9). Dan. 3:88 LXX speaks of 
deliverance from destruction (cf. Job 33:17), and Ezek. 13:21, 23 of deliverance from 
false divination. 

But the prophetical, historical and wisdom writings, as well as the Torah, celebrate 
the deliverance by Yahweh of his people both as a whole (Exod. 6:6; 14:30; Jdg. 6:9 
B; 8:34; 2 Ki. 18:32; 2 Esd. 8:31; Mic. 4:10; 5:5; Isa. 36:15; 44:6; 48:17; 49:7, 25; 
54:5, 8; Ezek. 13:21, 23; 1 Macc. 16:2) and as individuals (2 Sam. 12:7; 22:18, 44, 
49; Job 5:20; 22:30; 33:17; Pss. 6:4; 7:1; 17[16]:13; 25[24]:20). Sometimes this is 
related to the specific historical context of the great saving acts of God, especially the 
exodus (Exod. 6:6; 14:30) and the settlement in Canaan (Jdg. 6:9 B; 8:34). Other in- 
stances are 2 Ki. 18:32; Isa. 36:15; Mic. 4:10; 5:5; 2 Sam. 12:7; 22:18; 2 Ki. 18:32; 
3 Macc. 6:10. 

The OT, like secular Gk. literature, knows of human deliverers. But there is always 
the implication that these act in the name of Yahweh and in his power. Thus, Moses 
saved the daughters of the priest of Midian (Exod. 2:17, 19). Gideon is called a 
saviour of Israel (Jdg. 9:17 B). The king saves Israel (2 Sam. 19:9). The king is ap- 
pealed to as a deliverer (2 Sam. 14:16). It is the task of the judge to deliver (Ps. 
82(81]:4; on this Ps. > lyo NT 6(d) ). In Sir. 40:24 the brother or companion may be 
a saviour. A thief will be willing to give up all his goods in order to save himself 
(Prov. 6:31 LXX), and a man can save himself by giving money (3 Macc. 2:32). 

2. W. Kasch holds that there is a distinctive OT emphasis in those passages where 



a theocentric understanding replaces the anthropocentric understanding of secular 
Gk. Deliverance is no longer determined by the laws of being which obtain for both 
gods.and men but by “the creating and sustaining word of Yahweh for whom the sal- 
vation of the people and the individual is part of His creative action in the salvation 
history commenced by Him” (op. cit., 1001). He delivers according to his mercies 
(Neh. 9:28; cf. Ps. 33[32]:18f.), for his name’s sake (Ps. 79[78]:19). In Theodotion’s 
text of Dan. 3:96, Nebuchadnezzar confesses that “There is no god who can save 
thus” (but cf. 2 Ki. 18:33, where the Rabshakeh taunts Hezekiah with the question: 
“Has any of the gods of the nations ever delivered his land out of the hand of the 
king of Assyria?’’; and similarly Isa. 36:19). But in the later chapters of Isa. Yahweh 
is celebrated as the one who delivers his people from bondage: “Thou, O LorD, art 
our Father, our Redeemer from of old is thy name” (Isa. 63:16; cf. 44:6; 47:4; 
48:17, 20; 49:7; 51:10; 52:9; 54:5, 8; 59:20; 63:16). In all these passages of Isa. 
rhyomai translates ga’al. This usage is confined to Isa., apart from Gen. 48:16, 
though Isa. 49:25 f. and 63:5 use it for yaSa‘ and Isa. 50:2 has it for padah. 

Deliverance in the oT has nothing magical about it. Because it has to do with 
historical situations, it occurs in history. On one occasion, Moses could even 
reproach Yahweh for failing to deliver the people (Exod. 5:23; cf. 3 Macc. 6:11). 
However, the deliverance came in Yahweh’s good time. 

Kasch draws attention to the faith which corresponds to Yahweh’s deliverance 
and to which Yahweh responds: “In thee our fathers trusted; they trusted, and thou 
didst deliver. them” (Ps. 22[21]:4; cf. v. 8; Pss. 33[32]:18f.; 34[33]:7). Unbelief 
amounts to the denial that Yahweh can save (Isa. 36:14—20; Wis. 2:18ff.). On the 
other hand, Yahweh delivers those who fear him and hope in his steadfast love (Ps. 
33[32]: 18f.; Ezek. 14:20; cf. Job 22:30; 1 Macc. 2:60), and those who consider the 
— poor (Ps. 41; cf. Sir. 40:24). Israel so easily forget their God who rescued them 
from all their enemies on every side (Jdg. 8:34). But the Pss. contain the deepest ex- 
pression of individual awareness of guilt and the heartfelt cry for deliverance from 
transgression (Pss. 39[38]:8; 40[39]:13; 79[78]:9). In the last analysis, salvation is 
grounded in Yahweh’s mercy (Pss. 31[30]:1; 71[70]:2; 86[85]:13). 

NT The vb. is found relatively seldom in the NT — only 15 times compared with 106 
instances of > sozo. Moreover, seven of these occur in quotations or allusions to 
the OT; in each case God is the deliverer. 

(a) The taunt of the bystanders at the crucifixion echoes Ps. 22:8 (21:9): “He 
trusts in God; let God deliver him now, if he desires him; for he said, ‘I am the Son of 
God’” (Matt. 24:43). The mockers evidently took the sufferings of Jesus and the 
failure of God to deliver him as conclusive disproof of his claims. The allusion to the 
Ps. is seen by Matt. as proof of a deeper working of God. Although God does not 
deliver Jesus from death in the way that might have been expected, he delivers him in 
a deeper sense in the resurrection. (On the use of Ps. 22 in Matt.’s passion narrative 
— God, art. theos, NT 6 (d).) The psalm of Zechariah at the birth of John the Baptist 
sees the promised deliverance from the hand of Israel’s enemies to serve God without 
fear as a fulfilment of the promise to Abraham (cf. Gen. 22:16f.). The psalm sees this 
as now imminent and the child is the promised herald of salvation. 

In dealing with the question of whether God has finally rejected Israel, Paul argues 
(Rom. 11:26) that the present hardening is merely a temporary part of God’s pur- 



pose and that Isa. 59:20f. has yet to be fulfilled: “and so all Israel will be saved; as it 
is written, ‘The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from 
Jacob.’ The quotation may also take up the thought of Ps. 14:7: “O that 
deliverance for Israel would come out of Zion! When the Lorp restores the fortunes 
of his people, Jacob shall rejoice, Israel shall be glad.” Isa. 27:9 speaks of the expia- 
tion of the guilt of Jacob, and the forgiveness of Israel’s iniquity is a feature of the 
new — covenant (Jer. 31:34). (On the name Jacob — Israel, art. Jakob.) Zion was 
originally the City of David but is here understood eschatologically in a way com- 
parable to the “heavenly Jerusalem” (Gal. 4:26; — Jerusalem). The LXX reads “on 
account of Zion” and the MT “to Zion”. The Pauline variant may be indebted to 
Pss. 14:7 and 52:7 LXX. What Paul gives is evidently a reinterpretation of Isa. 
59:20, combined with the other passages mentioned, showing how OT prophecy has 
been fulfilled and will be fulfilled. (For a comparable adaptation and interpretation of 
the OT in the case of Eph. 4:8 [cf. Ps. 68:18] —- Heaven, art. anabaino nT S.) 

Paul’s account of his afflictions in Asia is expressed in language which recalls the 
Psalmist’s praise of Yahweh’s deliverance from death: “he delivered us from so 
deadly a peril, and he will deliver us; on whom we have set our hope that he will 
deliver us again” (2 Cor. 1:10). The allusion may be to the riots in Ephesus, the 
capital of the Roman province of Asia, which may have been more serious than 
might appear at first sight from Acts 19:23—40. But Paul may also be speaking of a 
serious illness (cf. 2 Cor. 12:7; > Fruit, art. skolops; cf. C. K. Barrett, The Second 
Epistle to the Corinthians, BNTC, 1973, 64). The request for prayer to be “delivered 
from wicked and evil men; for not all have faith’ (2 Thess. 3:2) also recalls OT 
language (cf. Isa. 24:4 LXX, Ps. 140 [139]:1). In view of 1 Thess. 2:15f., this may be 
a reference to the Jews, especially if the letter was written from Corinth at a time 
when Paul was experiencing opposition there from the Jews (cf. Acts 18:5ff.). OT 
language is again found in 2 Tim. 3:11 in reference to Paul’s sufferings at Antioch, 
Iconium and Lystra (cf. Acts 13:14—-52; 14:1—20; 16:1—5); “yet from them all the 
Lord rescued me.” 2 Tim. 4:17f. evidently describes a preliminary hearing of Paul’s 
case at Rome. Although it was the custom for friends of the defendant to appear with 
him to give him support, no one stood by Paul. “But the Lord stood by me and gave 
me strength to proclaim the word fully, that all the Gentiles might hear it. So I was 
rescued from the lion’s mouth. The Lord will rescue me from evil and save me for his 
heavenly kingdom. To him be glory for ever and ever. Amen.” The situation recalls 
Dan. 6:20 and Ps. 22:21 (21:22), but doubtless refers also to the Roman practice of 
exposing criminals to wild beasts in the arena. It is doubtful whether this could have 
been the Colosseum in this case, as it was formally inaugurated by Titus only in A.D. 
70. D. Guthrie, however, supposes that the lion here is metaphorical for Nero (The 
Pastoral Epistles, TC, 1957, 177). The absence of any further explanation makes it 
unlikely to be a symbolic reference to Satan (as in 1 Pet. 5:8). The expectation of 
future deliverance in v. 18 looks forward to deliverance through death and whatever 
terrifying circumstances may attend it (cf. vv. 6ff.; 1:12; 2:11ff.; Phil. 1:20ff.). 

In addition to the above passages with their OT allusions, 2 Pet. 2:9 occurs in a 
hortatory passage which illustrates its point from the OT: “then the Lord knows how 
to rescue the godly from trial, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until 
the day of judgment.” The examples cited are ~ Noah and the flood (v. 5; cf. Gen. 
6:1—8:22), the judgment on Sodom and Gomorrah (v.6; cf. Gen. 19:24), and the 



rescue of Lot (v. 7; cf. Gen. 19:16, 29). In each case the righteous is saved from the 
judgment which befalls the ungodly, and this is both an encouragement and a warn- 

(b) Only once is rhyomai used with a clear reference to the deliverance which 
believers have already experienced: “He has delivered us from the dominion of 
darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son” (Col. 1:13). A 
similar thought is expressed in Eph. 2:5—8 where believers are said to have been 
made alive after having been dead in trespasses and sins, and are now “saved 
through faith [sesosmenoi dia pisteos|.”’ The passage may be understood to refer to 
— baptism, if this in turn be understood in terms of all that baptism stands for in the 
light of the cross and Christian experience of life in Christ (cf. Col. 2:12—15; 3:1—4). 
It could equally be said to be the true meaning of > circumcision (cf. Col. 2:11, 13). 
Col. 1:14 relates this deliverance to — redemption, and the — forgiveness of sins. The 
— kingdom in v. 13 is the reign of Christ which is contrasted with the dominion of 
darkness. E. Lohse points out that the passage does not mean “that those baptized 
have been taken up into a transcendent realm of light. There is no mention of an 
enthusiastic anticipation of the consummation. Rather, just as darkness designates 
those who are lost, light characterizes the rule of Christ, which here and now shapes 
the life and conduct of those who are baptized” (Colossians and Philemon, 
Hermeneia, 1971, 38). On the background ideas ~ Light and > Darkness. In 
whatever terms this deliverance may be expressed, the common factor of all these 
passages in Col. and Eph. is that it is entirely the work of Christ. 

There has been considerable debate on. the interpretation of Rom. 7:24: 
“Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?” Man is 
subject to death because of sin (Rom. 5:12, 21; 6:23; cf. Gal. 6:7f.). On the question 
whether this passage refers to the cry of the unredeemed or that of the godly man» 
who is all too aware of his sinful nature, so long as he remains in this world, — I Am, 
art. ego eimi, NT 2 (c). The answer to the question is given in Rom. 7:25: “Thanks 
be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I of myself serve the law of God 
with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.” It suggests that the believer’s 
life in this world remains one of conflict. The answer is further developed in ch. 8. 
God has done in his Son what the law was powerless to do; “he condemned sin in the 
flesh, in order that the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk 
not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit” (Rom. 8:3b, 4). The believer is 
not to set his mind on the flesh, but to live according to the Spirit (Rom. 8:5, cf. 
6—17). Even so, the deliverance is not complete in this life. “We know that the whole 
creation has been groaning in travail together until now; and not only the creation, 
but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait for 
adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies” (Rom. 8:22f.). What we have now is 
only an anticipation of the eschatological fulfilment. 

The Lord’s Prayer contains the petition: “But deliver us from evil [alla rhysai 
hemas apo tou ponerou|’ (Matt. 6:13). The petition is omitted from the par. in Lk. 
11:2ff. On the interpretation of the petition > Evil, art. poneros NT 2 (b). Whether 
this is taken as a reference to being delivered from “the evil one” or from “evil” 
generally, the disciple is asking to be freed from the power which dominates this age 
and is constantly threatening him. But there is also an eschatological note. The 
thought of eternal salvation as the goal of deliverance is also present. 



Rom. 11:26 and 1 Thess. 1:10 are also thoroughly eschatological. The former 
passage has already been noted in connection with its use of the OT. The latter ex- 
presses the Christian hope as waiting for God’s “Son from heaven, whom he raised 
from the dead, Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come” (— Anger, art. orge; > 
Judgment). J. Schneider, C. Brown 

ae awtw (sozo), save, keep from harm, preserve, rescue; 
| owtnpia (soteria), salvation, deliverance, preservation; 
diaowlw (diasozo), bring safely through, save, rescue. 

CL 1. In the first instance both the vb. and the noun denote rescue and deliverance in 

the sense of averting some danger threatening life. This can happen in war (e.g. 
Homer, J/. 15, 290 f.; Plato, Symp. 220 d) or at sea (Homer, Od. 5; 130; Lucian, 
Dialogi Deorum 26, 2). But that which one is delivered from may also be an illness 
(SIG? II 620, 13 f.; If] 1173, 9). Where no immediate danger is mentioned, they can 
mean to keep or preserve (Homer, Od. 1, 83; 3, 185; 22, 357). The vb. (Homer, 
Il. 9, 393; Epictetus, Dissertationes 2, 17, 37 f.; Lucian, Dialogi Meretrici 9, 1) and 
the noun (Plutarch, Lacaenarum Apophthegmata 11) can even mean safe return 
home. (For further examples see W. Foerster, TDNT VII 966; Liddell-Scott, 1748, 

2. In religious contexts the gods save men from the various perils of life. They are 
regarded as saviours (— softer) and protectors, able to turn away the fate that 
threatens men. 

3. For the gnostics it is knowledge given by divine revelation which frees the soul 
from the power of death (cf. Corp.Herm. 1, 26; 1, 29; 7, 1 f.; + Knowledge, art. 
ginosko cL 2). 

4. In the mystery religions deliverance comes through the initiate’s sharing in the 
experience of the dying and rising god through the actions of the mystery cult. The 
4th cent. A.D. Latin author, Julius Firmicus Maternus of Syracuse, who was a con- 
vert to Christianity from Neo-Platonism and an opponent of the mystery cults, spoke 
of the “initiates of the saved deity [mystai tou theou sesosmenou|” (De Errore 
Profanarum Religionum 22, 1). The initiate participates in the divine being and thus 
attains a life which extends beyond death (Apul., Met. 11, 21). It is highly unlikely 
that the NT teaching on baptism was influenced by the mystery religions, not least in 
view of the fact that these practices considerably postdate the apostolic church (> 
Baptism, art. baptizo NT 7). (For a survey of the cults and their rites see G. Wagner, 
Pauline Baptisms and the Pagan Mysteries: The Problem of the Pauline Doctrine of 
Raptism in Romans VI. 1-11, in the Light of its Religio—Historical “Parallels”, 

5. In the philosophical and religious spheres, sozo and soteria are used to denote 
the divine preservation of all things. Plato expressed belief in such an ordering in Leg. 
10, 903 b. According to Cornutus of Leptis, Zeus is the one through whom all things 
come into being and are preserved (sozetai) (Theologia Graeca 2 [3, 9|). The Stoic 
philosopher emperor of the 2nd cent. A.D., Marcus Aurelius, comforted his soul with 
the thought of a higher divine ordering and preservation (soteria) of life (Meditations 
10, 1, 3). In the Hellenistic-Roman period, when belief in fate replaced that of a 



divine harmony, the sozein of the gods came to include their power to save and keep 
from an inscrutable destiny (TDNT VII 969). 

6. In the gnosticism attested by the post-Christian Hermetic literature, it is 
knowledge (gnosis) which saves. It is imparted to the gnostic by revelation or by a 
mediator (Corp.Herm. 1, 26; 1, 29). Its content is the salvation of man from the 
power of death. The — soul is saved (Corp. Herm. 7, 1). On gnosticism > Knowledge, 
art. ginosko CL 2; for texts see W. Foerster, Gnosis: A Selection of Gnostic Texts, 
I. Patristic Evidence, 1972, Il. Coptic and Mandaic Sources, 1974. 

OT In the LXX sozo translates no less than 15 different Heb. vbs., but the most im- 

portant are yaSa‘, used in the hiphil for to deliver and save, and malat, niphal to 
slip away, escape, piel to deliver, save. The noun soteria, which is also common es- 
pecially in the historical books, Job, the Pss. and Isa., stands for 6 different Heb. for- 
mations, but chiefly they are connected with the vb. yaSa“. For a linguistic study see 
J. F. A. Sawyer, Semantics in Biblical Research: New Methods of Defining Hebrew 
Words for Salvation, SBT Second Series 24, 1972. Sawyer’s work is set against the 
general contentions that an adequate definition of context must precede every seman- 
tic statement; that semantic statements must be primarily synchronic, 1.e. the exe- 
gete must analyse the statement in terms of the relevant point in time; that semantic 
universals operate in OT Hebrew as in any other language; that a structural ap- 
proach is required as much for semantic description as for philological and gram- 
matical analysis; and that semantic analysis must be monolingual, i.e. the study of 
comparative etymology and grammar is often irrelevant to ascertaining the meaning 
and usage of a word in another language. 

1. sozo and yaSa‘. (a). Deliverance may come about through men. In some cases 
it may lack any particular theological significance (e.g. 1 Sam. 23:5; cf. Gen. 47:25, 
hayah; Jos. 6:25). It may be the relief of a besieged city (1 Sam. 11:3) or help in bat- 
tle (Jdg. 12:2 f.; 13:5), though human agency does not necessarily exclude Yahweh’s 
ultimate agency, and sometimes men are powerless to save (Jer. 14:9; Hos. 13:10). 
Judges, Nazirites and especially the kings had the task of delivering Israel (Jdg. 8:22; 
13:5; 2 Sam. 3:18; 14:4; 2 Ki. 6:26; Hos. 13:10). The king was not only a deliverer 
of the nation but the deliverer of the > poor, needy and oppressed within the nation 
(Ps. 72[71]:4, 13). 

On the other hand, the OT gives repeated, sharp reminders about human limita- 
tions. Gideon’s band was reduced to three hundred men, for “The Lorp said to Gi- 
deon, ‘The people with you are too many for me to give the Midianites into their 
hand, lest Israel vaunt themselves against me, saying, ““My own hand. has delivered 
me”’” (Jdg. 7:2; cf. v. 7). It is by the power and name of Yahweh that Israel has 
won the land and been saved from his enemies (Ps. 44[43]:3, 6 f.). In the last 
analysis, victory in battle is Yahweh’s work (Ps. 33[32]:16 f.; cf. 146[145]|:3; Hos. 
1:7; 14:4). Therefore, Isa. 30:15 counsels: ““For thus said the Lord God, the Holy 
One of Israel, ‘In returning and rest you shall be saved; in quietness and in trust shall 
be your strength.” It is important to do Yahweh’s work by Yahweh’s appointed 
means. It was only by Yahweh’s intervention that David was saved from bloodguilt 
(1 Sam. 25:26, 31, 33). Moreover, the astrologers are powerless to save (Isa. 47:14; 
—+ Magic). So too are the idols (Isa. 45:20; 46:7; Jer. 2:27 f.; 3:23; 11:12: Hos. 



14:3a; > Image, art. eidolon) and the nations (Hos. 14:3b). 

(b) While Yahweh employs human agents, the pious Israelite was aware of the 
fact that deliverance comes ultimately from Yahweh himself. The vb. yaSa‘ is par- 
ticularly prominent in the Pss., where men look both backwards to past and forward 
to future deliverance from enemies and trouble. Often the Psalmist cries hdsiGh, 
“Save!” or “Help!” (Pss. 12[11]:1; 20[19]:9; 28[27]:9; 60[59]:5; 86/85|:16; 
108[107]:6; cf. also the formations with other suffixes in Pss. 3:7; 6:4; 7:2: 
22(21]:22; 31[30]:16; 54[53]:1; 59[58]:2; 69[68]:1; 71[70]:2; 106[105|:47; 
109[108]:26; 118[117]:25; 119[118]:94). Deliverance or salvation (Heb. y‘Sa‘ah and 
cognates) is the work of God, but its precise content varies according to context and 
circumstances (cf. F. F. Bruce, “ ‘Our God and Saviour’: A Recurring Biblical Pat- 
tern”, in S. G. F. Brandon, ed., The Saviour God, 1963, 54—65). In Ps. 74(73);12 
soteria denotes the victory over the powers of chaos at the — creation (cf. Ps. 65:5—8 
[64:6—9]). But it can also denote victory over historical enemies (Pss. 60[59]|:11; 
144[143]:10). Other senses of the noun and vb. are vindication (Pss. 72|71]|:4; 
76[75]:9), help (69[68]:14; 119[118]:81), and freedom from troubles and calamities 
(cf. the various terms used in Pss. 18[17]:19; 85[84]:7; 91[90]:16; Job 30:15). Oc- 
casionally, there are eschatological overtones: “May God be gracious to us and bless 
us and make his face to shine upon us, that thy way may be known upon earth, thy 
saving power [MT )’Si‘ateka; LXX to soterion sou\ among all nations” (Ps. 67:1 f. 
[66:2 fl; cf. on these various points A. A. Anderson, The Book of Psalms, New Cen- 
tury Bible, 1, 1972, 277). 

The theme of salvation and deliverance is by no means confined to the Pss., 
although both in the Pss. and elsewhere salvation has often cultic associations. At the 
climax of the blessing attributed to Moses reviewing Yahweh’s dealings with the 
several tribes, Israel is seen as a unique nation: “Happy are you, O Israel! Who is 
like you, a people saved by the LorD, the shield of your help, and the sword of your 
triumph! Your enemies shall come fawning to you; and you shall tread upon their 
high places” (Deut. 33:29; cf. Exod. 15:2; 2 Sam. 11:13; 14:23, 39; 2 Sam. 8:6, 14 
for other expressions of gratitude for deliverance in battle). Conversely, Israel’s 
failure to trust Yahweh’s saving power provokes his wrath (Ps. 78|77|:22; LXX to 
soterion autou; cf. Num. 10:9; Deut. 20:4; Isa. 17:10; Hab. 3:13). The absence of 
the ark prevents Yahweh from saving (1 Sam. 4:3), as does turning to other gods 
(Jdg. 10:12 ff.). For in the historical writings and the prophets victory comes from 
Yahweh (Isa. 33:3; Jer. 14:8; 15:20; 17:14; Zeph. 3:17). 

Solomon’s prayer at the dedication of the temple in 2 Chr. 6:41 contains the peti- 
tion: “And now arise O LorD God, and go to thy resting place, thou and the ark of 
thy might. Let thy priests, O Lorp God, be clothed with salvation, and let thy saints 
rejoice in thy goodness.” The par. in Ps. 132[131]:9 > “righteousness” instead of 
“salvation”, but that in v. 16 has “salvation”. The thought expresses a heartfelt 
desire that the priests should be characterized by righteousness (cf. Isa. 11:5; 61:10) 
and thus be instruments of the divine blessing, which is at once pure and holy and at 
the same time brings deliverance to the people (cf. 2 Chr. 6:36—39). H.-J. Kraus 
Suggests that there may be an underlying allusion to the function of the priests as the 
givers of oracles of salvation (Psalmen, BKAT 15, 1960, 886). Something of the sort 
would fit the context, for the preceding verses deal with the possibility of repentance 
and restoration after the people have gone astray. It would therefore be appropriate 



for the priests to lead the people into the ways of righteousness which bring 
deliverance from trouble. A. A. Anderson rightly rejects the suggestion of W. O. E. 
Oesterley that the priests must be clothed in “fitting — i.e. festal— garments” (op. cit., 
II, 883; cf. Oesterley, The Psalms, 1939, 532). For whilst the appropriate cultic dress 
was the prerequisite of temple worship, the whole context suggests that more than 
liturgical propriety is at stake here. Correct outer vestments should correspond to an 
inner righteousness which comes from Yahweh alone. For similar parallelism see Isa. 

Another expression with cultic overtones is “the cup of salvation” (Ps. 116:13 
[115:4]; cf. 16:5). In reply to his own question, “What shall I render to the Lorp for 
all his bounty to me?” (v. 12), the psalmist can only receive with gratitude what 
Yahweh freely gives him and rededicate himself: “I will lift up the cup of salvation 
and call on the name of the Lorp, I will pay my vows to the Lorp in the presence of 
his people.” Anderson suggests four possible interpretations of the “cup” (op. cit., IT, 
794): (1) a drink offering of wine which was part of the thank offering (cf. Num. 
28:7); (2) a metaphor of deliverance, and the opposite of the cup of Yahweh’s wrath 
(cf. Isa. 51:17; Jer. 25:15); (3) a cup connected with some particular ordeal (cf. 
Num. 5:16—28); (4) a cup of wine used at the thanksgiving meal (cf. Ps. 23:5). An- 
derson prefers the first of these alternatives in view of its association with something 
rendered to Yahweh. However, the suggestion is attractive that such a cup 
necessarily stands in contrast with the cup of Yahweh’s wrath, and therefore this idea 
may also be present. Similarly in Exod. 14:13 man’s role is that of trusting response 
in which the exodus provides a pattern: “And Moses said to the people, ‘Fear not, 
stand firm, and see the salvation of the LoRD, which he will work for you today; for 
the Egyptians whom you see today, you shall never see again. The Lorp will fight for 
you, and you have only to be still.” 

Here the salvation in question is an earthly and historical one. S. R. Driver 
suggests that salvation and deliverance “seldom, if ever, express a spiritual state 
exclusively: their common theological sense in Hebrew is that of a material 
deliverance attended by spiritual blessings (e.g. Is. 12,2; 45, 17)” (Notes on the 
Hebrew Text and Topography of the Books of Samuel, 19137, 119). However, cer- 
tain passages in the prophets have an eschatological dimension. In the last days 
Yahweh will bring full salvation for his people (e.g. Isa. 43:5 ff.; Jer. 31:7; 46:27; 
Zech. 8:7; > Present, art. hemera oT). Then Israel “will draw water from the wells of 
salvation” (Isa. 12:3), and the whole world will share in this salvation (Isa. 45:22; 
49:6). | 

Finally, it may be noted that the Heb. vb. yasa‘ and the divine name are combined 
in certain proper names which celebrate Yahweh as the deliverer: e.g. Isaiah (Heb. 
y Sa‘yahi, Salvation of Yah) which was the name given to the prophet (Isa. 1:1; 2 Ki. 
19:2; 2 Chr. 26:22; 32:20, 32 etc.) and various others (1 Chr. 25:3, 15; 26:25); 
Joshua (Heb. y*hdSstia‘, y*hdésua‘, and later yestia‘, Yah or Yahweh is salvation), the 
name given to Moses’ successor (Exod. 17:9 ff.; Deut. 1:38; 3:21, 28; 31:3 ff.; Jos. 
1:1 etc.) and numerous others (e.g. 1 Sam. 6:14, 18; Hag. 1:12, 14; Ezra 2:6, 40): 
and cf. Hosea (Heb. hoSea‘, salvation), the original name of Joshua (Num. 13:8, 16), 
the last king of Israel (2 Ki. 15:30; 17:1, 3, 4, 6; 18:1, 9 f.), the prophet (Hos. 1:2) 
and different chiefs (1 Chr. 27:20; Neh. 10:24). In some cases the person so named 
was a living testimony to Yahweh’s saving power; in others the life was a denial of 


the name. The name of Jesus derives from Joshua (> Jesus Christ, art. Jesous: > also 
Name; cf. BDB 221, 447). 

2. The vb. malat means in the niphal to slip away, slip through (1 Sam. 20:29; 
2 Sam. 4:6), and so to escape (e.g. Jdg. 3:29; 1 Sam. 19:10—17; 30:17; 1 Ki. 18:40; 
20:20; 2 Ki. 10:24; Isa. 10:6; 49:24 f.; Jer. 46:6; 48:8, 19; Ezek. 17:15, 18: Amos 
9:1; Jon. 3:5; Zech. 2:11; Mal. 3:15). In the piel it means to deliver or save (1 Sam. 
19:11; 2 Sam. 19:6; 1 Ki. 1:12; Ps. 41:2; Job 22:30; 29:12; Ps. 107[ 106]|:20), and in 
particular to save life (1 Sam. 19:11; 2 Sam. 19:6; 1 Ki. 1:12; Jer. 48:6; 51:6, 45: 
Ezek. 33:5; Amos 2:14 f.; Job 20:20; Pss. 89[88]:49; 116[114]:6). It is the 
testimony of the fathers of Israel that they trusted in God to deliver them: “To thee 
they cried, and were saved; in thee they trusted, and were not disappointed” (Ps. 
22(21]:5; cf. 8, 21). Job’s comforter, Eliphaz the Temanite argued that “God abases 
the proud, but he saves the lowly. He delivers the innocent man; you will be delivered 
through the cleanness of your hands” (Job 22:29 f.). The implication was drawn that 
Job’s sufferings were divine retribution for some sin that he had not put right. But the 
message of the Book of Job is that suffering is not necessarily the direct effect of such 
a cause and that God’s ways are more marvellous than man can comprehend (cf. 
chs. 38-41). In the end God delivered Job and restored to him more than he had at 
first (Job 42), rebuking the folly of the comforters with their facile explanations. 

Numerous passages warn against turning for deliverance to things which, in 
worldly wisdom, man would naturally expect to save him from calamity: an army or 
the strength of a war horse (Ps. 33|34]:16 f.), the might of a foreign state (Isa. 20:6), 
wealth (Job 20:20; Eccl. 8:8, where wickedness is also a possible reading), or one’s 
own understanding (Prov. 28:26). The true wisdom which saves is different from 
man’s native understanding (Prov. 28:26; Eccl. 9:15). But there is no escape for the 
worshippers of Baal (1 Ki. 19:17) or even the whole nation of Israel in its guilt 
(Amos 2:14 f.; 9:1), the king (Jer. 32:4), and the Babylonian makers of idols (Isa. 
46:2). In the coming deliverance prophesied by Isa. 49:24 f., the captives will be 
delivered from those who held them captive. In the last days those who call on the 
name of the Lord will be saved (Joel 2:32 [3:5]). In Dan. 12:1 it is they whose names 
are written in the book of life. 

3. In the apocryphal books sozo is seldom used of one person rescuing another 
(exceptions are 1 Macc. 6:44; 9:21; 3 Macc. 7:20). It is more often found in the mid- 
dle and passive of being saved through flight (e.g. 1 Macc. 2:44; 9:9; 10:83; 11:48). 
It is the theme of 4 Macc. that deliverance cannot be found by abandoning the law 
(9:4; 15:2, 8, 27; cf. Jud. 10:15; 11:3; for further discussion see W. Foerster, TDNT 
VII 981). The vb. is always used in the context of dire threat to life. The vast ma- 
jority of cases have to do with God’s rescuing of the godly (Wis. 9:18; 16:7; 18:5; 
1 Macc. 3:18; 4:9, 11; 9:46; 2 Macc. 1:25; 8:27; 4 Macc. 4:14; 17:22; Sir. 48:8). 
Conversely, the heathen gods cannot save (Ep. Jer. 49). The noun soteria is found 
e.g. in Wis. 5:2; 6:24; 16:6; 18:7; Sir. 4:23; 40:7; 46:1; 1 Macc. 3:6; 4:25; 5:62; 
2 Macc. 3:29, 32; 7:25; 11:6; 12:25; 13:3; 14:3; 3 Macc. 6:13, 33, 36; 7:16, 22: 
4 Macc. 9:4; 12:6; 15:2, 8, 27). The idea of an eternal salvation which comes from 
God, as contrasted with an earthly one which comes from man with its attendant 
compromises, is present in 4 Macc. 15:3; cf. Wis. 5:2; Tob. 14:4, 7 v.l.; Bar. 4:24, 

In Eth. En. 106:16 the idea of being saved occurs in reference to the flood. But the 



idea occurs most frequently in statements to the effect that the ungodly have no 
salvation or hope of salvation (Eth. En. 5:6; 98:10, 14; 99:1; 102:1; cf. also 5:6; 
48:7; 50:3; 62:13). In Test. XII salvation is applied to the individual in both tem- 
poral deliverance (Test. Reub. 3:9; Test. Jos. 10:3; Test. Lev. 2:4; Test. Gad 4:7; 
5:7; Test. Dan 6:9) and eternal salvation (Test. Ben. 4:1; Test. Ash. 5:2; cf. 6:6; 
Test. Lev. 4:1; Test. Reub. 5:5; Test. Gad 7:5; Test. Zeb. 10:3). Over against the 
eternal salvation stands eternal punishment, in which the wicked are cast into the fire. 
The godly individual attains salvation by his prayers and piety and by God’s help. 
But Test. XII also speak of the eschatological salvation of Israel in which even the 
nations also participate (Test. Jud. 22:2; Test. Ash. 7:3; Test. Ben. 10:5). In par- 
ticular the salvation springs from Levi and Judah (Test. Jos. 19:11; Test. Dan 5:10; 
Test. Lev. 2:10; Test. Naph. 8:2 f.; Test. Sim. 7:1 f.) 

Pss. Sol. contain the same two lines of thought of salvation for the godly individual 
(16: 4f.; 3:5; 6:1; 13:2, 7; 15:6) and the nation (Pss. Sol. 17 and 18; cf. 10:8; 12:6), 
but there is no unambiguous expression of eternal salvation (W. Foerster, TDNT VII 
985). 2 Esd. speaks of the savirig intervention of God in the history of Israel (14:29) 
and in the last days (9:7; 13:23; 14:34). 2 Esd. 5:45 and 14:35 refer to the quicken- 
ing of the creation. “Many have been created, but few shall be saved” (2 Esd. 8:3; cf. 
8:41; 9:13; see further W. Foerster, TDNT VII 985 f.). 

5. Josephus generally uses both th noun and the vb. in the sense of rescuing 
someone from death, a city from an enemy, or the land and the temple from destruc- 
tion (W. Foerster, TDNT VII 986; cf. War 5, 480; 7, 67; Ant. 8, 115). There are 
possible eschatological overtones in War 6, 285, though the utterance is attributed to 
a false prophet, and in general Josephus does not use sozo and soteria in a 
theologically pregnant manner. Similarly, Philo frequently uses them in the sense of 
rescuing from danger or preservation in a temporal sense. But his main interest lies in 
the relationship between God and the godly man (e.g. Sobr. 55; Migr. Abr. 
122-125). God is the saviour (— softer) who not only preserves order but saves and 
helps in the struggles of the soul against the passions. “If Philo’s allegorising entails 
an importing of alien Gk. thoughts into the text of the Torah, his use of the sozo 
group, esp. soferia, shows that Gk. thinking was not able to destroy entirely the in- 
fluence of the OT. For Philo the content of soteria is not that man maintains his own 
humanity but that in Platonic fashion he acquires a share of the divine forces by sub- 
duing the passions. The ref. to God’s help permits him to speak of a panteles soteria 
which God grants: God is boethos to the contemplative soul hos charisasthai pantele 
soterian aute, Ebr. 111; cf. Som. 1, 86; Migr. Abr. 2 and 124; Ebr., 72” (W. 
Foerster, TDNT VII 989). 

6. The Qumran literature frequently refers to God’s saving and helping in the 
history of Israel (1QM 4:13; 10:4 f.; 11:3; 14:4 f.; 18:7; CD 5:19; 1QS 1:18 f.). But 
God’s saving also figures in the personal life of the godly. The Hymns testify to the 
experiences enjoyed by the one who trusts in the help of God: “Thou hast saved me 
from the zeal of lying interpreters, and from the congregation of those who seek 
smooth things” (1QH 2:32). “I will praise Him when distress is unleashed and will 
magnify Him also because of His salvation” (1QS 10:17; cf.; 1QH 5:11 f.; 11:23 f.). 
God has created the righteous to “enlarge his straitened soul to eternal salvation” 
(1QH 15:16). Regarded eschatologically, it is not the individual but God’s people as 
a whole which is the object of salvation. 1QM 1:12 speaks of the “time of [great] 


tribulation for the people which God shall redeem” (cf. 14:5). God saves his people 
from the power of darkness with a view to eternal salvation (1QH frag. 18:5; cf. 
1QH 15:15). Redemption is eternal (1QM 1:12; 18:11) and correspondingly destruc- 
tion is certain for the nations of wickedness (1QM 15:1 f.). For further discussion 
see W. Foerster, TDNT VII 982 f. 

7. In rabbinic writings yaSa‘ tends to recede in favour of nasal. The helping inter- 
vention of God is more prominent than the saving work of men. The most frequent 
reference is to the bringing of Israel out of ~ Egypt, which serves as a type of es- 
chatological redemption (SB II 139, 141; cf. TDNT VII 987). 

NT The vb. sozo is found in the NT 106 times and the compound vb. diasozo 8 
times; the noun soteria occurs 45 times. 

1. The meaning of deliverance from immediate physical danger to life is com- 
paratively rare. It is found, e.g., in the account of Paul’s shipwreck (Acts 27:20, 31, 
34). It may be noted that 5 out of the 8 instances of diasozo come in the account of 
how Paul escaped various dangers including shipwreck on his way to Rome (Acts 
23:24; 27:43, 44; 28:1, 4). The remaining three examples of the compound vb. refer 
to the sick who touched Jesus’ garment being made well (Matt. 14:36), the plea of the 
centurion to heal his slave (Lk. 7:3), and to the eight souls, including ~ Noah, who 
were “saved through water” (1 Pet. 3:20). The last instance refers to physical danger 
but has soteriological overtones and is seen as a parallel to > baptism with its sym- 
bolism of cleansing and death and resurrection (v. 21). Otherwise, sozo occurs in 
Peter’s cry, “Lord, save’, in the stilling of the storm (Matt. 8:25) and “Lord, save 
me”, in the walking on the water (Matt. 14:30). Some scholars think that the words, 
which are found only in Matt., have a liturgical ring about them (cf. D. Hill, The 
- Gospel of Matthew, New Century Bible, 1972, 166). No doubt, they point beyond 
their immediate narrative context to the condition of the hearer and reader. A num- 
ber of passages use sozo in the sense of saving from death, but again there are over- 
tones of divine deliverance. At the crucifixion the bystanders derided Jesus, saying, 
“Aha! You who would destroy the temple and build it in three days, save yourself, 
and come down from the cross!’ So also the chief priests mocked him to one another 
with the scribes saying, ‘He saved others; he cannot save himself” (Mk. 15:29 ff. 
par. Matt. 27:39 f.; cf. Mk. 13:2; 14:58; Jn. 2:19). In Lk.’s account, “One of the 
criminals who were hanged railed at him, saying, ‘Are you not the Christ? Save 
yourself and us!” (Lk. 23:39). But the other criminal sought salvation in terms of 
repentance and mercy and was promised by Jesus that he would be with him that 
day in > paradise (Lk. 23:43). Jesus’ cry of dereliction prompted some to say, “Wait, 
let us see whether Elijah will come to save him” (Matt. 27:49; — Elijah; > God, art. 
theos NT 6 (d) ). In Gethsemane Jesus prayed, “Now is my soul troubled. And what 
shall I say, ‘Father, save me from this hour’? No, for this purpose I have come to this 
hour” (Jn. 12:27). Jesus’ Gethsemane prayer is reflected upon in Heb. 5:7: “In the 
days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and 
tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard for his godly 
fear.” Finally, the saving of > Noah is seen as God’s response to Noah’s faith: “By 
faith Noah, being warned by God concerning events yet unseen, took heed and con- 
structed an ark for the saving of his household; by this he condemned the world and 
became an heir of the righteousness which comes by faith’ (Heb. 11:7). In these 



passages the saving in question is the saving from physical death. The passion 
narratives show that God has purposes which transcend such saving. The word- 
group is never found in the NT with the meaning of simply protecting or maintaining 

2. In the Synoptic accounts of Jesus’ > miracles of — healing, the vb. sozo is used 
16 times and diasozo twice (see | above). The noun soferia is found in Lk. (1:69, 71, 
77; 19:9) and Jn. (4:22), but not in Matt. or Mk. The healing in these stories is 
always of the whole man. The — faith of the person is of great importance for its 
achievement. It makes effective Christ’s saving power: “Your faith has made you 
well” (Mk. 10:52; Lk. 8:48; 17:19; 18:42); “Your faith has saved you” (Matt. 9:22 
par. Mk. 5:34, Lk. 8:48; Lk. 7:50). Here sozo has the sense of making well, deliver- 
ing from the evil, physical affliction. Commenting on the healing of the woman, D. 
Hill writes: “The faith that made her well is the expectant admission, by reason of her 
presence and action, that only Jesus can deal with her condition. This confidence is 
the ground on which Jesus authoritatively banishes her illness. It is the word of Jesus 
which heals, not the woman’s action or faith” (op. cit., 179). Jesus’ acts of healing 
were continued in those of the > apostles. They were carried out in the > name of > 
Jesus Christ (Acts 4:10) and similarly presupposed the faith necessary for healing 
(Acts 14:9; cf. Jas. 5:15). 

The particular theological and soteriological significance of the word-group is 
largely latent in the Synoptic tradition. Zechariah’s psalm at the birth of his son, 
John, makes three references to the salvation which the child will herald, but does so 
in terms of the OT thought-world. He blesses God for raising up “a horn of salvation 
for us in the house of his servant David” (Lk. 1:69). ‘““As an animal’s strength is in its 
horn so God is a ‘horn’ in effecting his mighty act of salvation (Ps. 18:2; cf. Dt. 
33:17; 1QH 9:28f.). The ancient title for God is applied to Messiah. In the Old 
Testament there is an undefined fusion of Yahweh and his ‘messenger’. This may be 
present here. Cf. Jg. 6:11—23; 13:21 f.; Mal. 3:1” (E. E. Ellis, The Gospel of Luke, 
New Century Bible, 1966, 76). The salvation is construed as being “‘saved from our 
enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us” (Lk. 1:71; — rhyomai NT). The child 
is sent by God “to give knowledge of salvation to his people in the forgiveness of 
their sins” (Lk. 1:77; cf. Mal. 4:5; Mk. 1:4). Whereas in the OT cleansing from sin 
was a precondition of physical salvation from one’s enemies, this psalm suggests that 
it is the precondition of light and peace (Lk. 1:78 f.; cf. Mal. 4:2; Isa. 9:2), which are 
now understood primarily in terms of a personal relationship with God in Christ. 
Matt. 1:21 explains the name Jesus: “for he shall save his people from their sins.” 

Jesus is a form of Joshua, but whereas Joshua was God’s agent in saving ancient 
Israel from his enemies, Jesus is God’s saviour from sin (see above oT | (b); > Jesus 
Christ, art. Jesous OT). 

Certain passages in the Synoptic Gospels imply eschatological salvation. In a say- 
ing following his challenge to take up one’s — cross, Jesus declares: “For whoever 
would save his life will lose it; and whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel’s 
will save it” (Mk. 8:35 par. Matt. 16:25, Lk. 9:24; cf. Jn. 12:25). “Jesus’ words envi- — 
sion men before a court where denial of association with him will bring release while 
affirmation of ‘Jesus and the gospel’ issues in martyrdom. He thoroughly appreciates 
the frailty of human life threatened by death, but warns that the man who seeks to 
secure his own existence by denial of his Lord brings about his own destruction. 


Paradoxically, the man who yields his life in loyalty to Jesus safeguards it in a deeper 
sense ... In the second half of Mark ‘the gospel’ always denotes the message an- 
nounced by the Church, of which Jesus is the content (Chs. 8:35; 10:29; 13:10; 
14:9), precisely as in Ch. 1:1. Mark knew experientially that for the gospel men 
abandoned their goods (Ch. 10:29) and gave their lives (Ch. 8:35). It is possible that 
he has preserved an early Christian slogan, ‘for Christ and the gospel’, for which 
believers suffered and overcame” (W. L. Lane, The Gospel of Mark, NLC, 1974, 
308 f.). Following the saying about the camel and the eye of a needle, the disciples 
asked “Then who can be saved?” (Mk. 10:26 par. Matt. 19:26, Lk. 18:26; > 
Animal, art. Animals in the nT; > Possessions). Jesus replied: “With men it 1s 1m- 
possible, but not with God; for all things are possible with God” (Mk. 10:27 par.). 
“Salvation is completely beyond the sphere of human possibilities; every attempt to 
enter the Kingdom on the basis of achievement or merit is futile. Yet even the rule of 
the impossibility of entrance into the Kingdom for the rich is limited by the sovereign 
action of God himself” (W. L. Lane, op. cit., 370). 

This salvation has, however, become a present fact through the actions of Jesus 
which bring forgiveness of sins. It is brought out by Lk. in his account of the change 
that came over Zacchaeus. “And Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to 
this house, since he also is a son of Abraham. for the Son of man came to seek and to 
save the lost’” (Lk. 19:9 f.; cf. Lk. 15:1—32). 

3. In the proclamation of the primitive church, sozo and soteria gained a central 
importance through their application to Christ as the basis, content and goal of the > 
gospel. They are used to sum up the essential characteristic of his mission. This is 
clearly expressed in Acts. In Acts 4:12 Peter declares to the assembled religious 
leaders that “there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under 
heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” E. Haenchen is doubtless 
correct when he says that here “soteria embraces both ‘healing’ and ‘salvation’ ” 
(The Acts of the Apostles, 1971, 217). The occasion was Peter’s defence after being 
arrested for healing the lame man in the temple in the > name of Jesus Christ of 
Nazareth (Acts 3:6; cf. 4:9 f.). Peter had taken the opportunity to preach Jesus as 
the servant foretold by the prophets and whom God had raised up and “sent to you 
first, to bless you, in turning every one of you from your wickedness” (Acts 3:26). 
Acts 4:12 makes an absolute and universal claim for the Christian message of salva- 
tion. The apostolic kerygma which was addressed first to the Jews (Acts 13:26) and 
then to the Gentiles (Acts 16:17 etc.) excludes every other way of salvation (Acts 
13:38; 15:10 f.), for salvation can be gained only by faith in Christ (Acts 16:31). The 
salvation given to the one who believes consists in the forgiveness of sins (Acts 
10:43; cf. 26:18) and a new relationship with God. 

In Acts, statements about salvation focus on the immediate present. The offer of 
salvation is linked with the demand, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation” 
(Acts 2:40). A mention of future salvation is found in Acts 2:20, alluding to Joel 2:32 | 
(MT 3:5): “And it shall be that whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be 
saved.” The Joel prophecy refers to the end-time, and its use implies that the end 
time has now dawned. It should be noted that “the name” for Joel was that of 
Yahweh, whereas in Acts it is applied to Jesus. In him God is personally present in a 
saving way. C. Brown 



4. In his major epistles addressed to specific churches, Paul uses sozo and soteria 
exclusively for the saving activity of God. The message of saving grace comes to 
men through the kerygma. The — gospel brings salvation (Eph. 1:13). “It is the 
power of God for salvation to every one who has faith” and brings deliverance from 
destruction (Rom. 1:16; cf. 1 Cor. 1:21). The word of the > cross especially is the 
power of God for those who are being saved (1 Cor. 1:18). In 1 Cor. 15:2 Paul states 
that Christians have obtained deliverance; they have been saved by the grace of God 
through faith (Eph. 2:8). In Eph. 1:13 we have a comprehensive picture of the 
process of salvation; the believers addressed in the epistle have heard the gospel 
before their deliverance, they came to faith and were sealed with the Holy — Spirit. 
Paul’s statements about the goal of his missionary activity correspond to this. He 
was intent on bringing the news of salvation to as many Jews and Gentiles as possi- 
ble through the preaching of the gospel (Rom. 1:15; 11:14; 1 Cor. 9:22; 10:33; 1 
Thess. 2:16; cf. also 1 Cor. 7:16). Those who have been saved through faith are con- 
trasted with those who are perishing (1 Cor. 1:18; 2 Cor. 2:15). The apostle testifies 
to the fact that salvation is a present reality through the divine means of grace 
presented and offered to men, when he adds to his quotation of Isa. 49:8 the words 
“now is the day of salvation” (2 Cor. 6:2). 

From Rom. 8:24, “For we have been saved, though only in hope [te gar elpidi 
esothemen|” (NEB), we can see how strongly Paul was conscious of the inner 
relationship between present and future salvation. The very fact that we have already 
been saved makes the expectation of final eschatological salvation the greater reality. 
Moreover, the final verdict is passed at that time (1 Cor. 3:15; 5:5; cf. 2 Cor. 5:10). 
This future salvation, which is “nearer to us now than when we first believed” (Rom. 
13:11), is the goal towards which Christians press. All present warning, discipline 
and punishment have as their purpose that we should not forfeit this eschatological 
salvation (cf. 1 Cor. 5:1-13; 9:24—-27; 2 Cor. 2:10; — Discipline, art. enkrateia; > 
Destroy, art. olethros). Accordingly, in Phil. 2:12 those who have been saved by 
God’s grace are exhorted to work out their future, and therefore final, salvation by a 
sanctified life in fear and trembling. According to God’s plan of salvation, all Israel 
will share in the future salvation after the fullness of the Gentiles has come in (into 
the church of God) (Rom. 11:25 f.). In this final, eschatological salvation (Phil. 
2:12; 1 Thess. 5:8 f.; 2 Thess. 2:13) we are concerned firstly with deliverance from 
the coming wrath of God (Rom. 5:9; 1 Cor. 3:15; 5:5; 1 Thess. 1:10; 5:9; > Anger) 
and secondly with the granting of the divine — glory (doxa). Then Christians are 
conformed to the > image of the Son of God, and so God’s activity, begun with his 
choice of believers for salvation from the beginning, reaches its conclusion (Rom. 
8:29; 2 Thess. 2:13 f.). 

5. In the Pastoral Epistles there is a whole series of statements about salvation 
which shows a comprehensive understanding of it. 

(a) God desires the salvation of all. He desires all men to be saved ae to come to 
a — knowledge of the truth (1Tim. 2:4; on the use of “all” in connexion with Christ’s 
ransom death in | Tim. 2:6 > lytron NT 2). 

(b) The task of Jesus was to save sinners; that is why he came into the world 
(1 Tim. 1:15). This confessional statement is strengthened by the apostle’s personal 
testimony that he himself had experienced the saving power of grace, knowing him- 
self to be the chief of sinners. 



(c) The present experience of salvation is testified to in a number of passages. God 
has saved us and called us with a holy calling (2 Tim. 1:9). In this > call, operative 
through divine — grace, lies the basis for our appropriation of salvation. We find the 
thought that God has saved us, not because of the deeds we have done, but in virtue 
of his own mercy, also in Tit. 3:5. Here salvation is linked with > baptism and 
renewal of life through the Holy Spirit (> Birth, art. palingenesia). 2 Tim. 3:14 f. 
declares that knowledge of the Scriptures can bring to salvation through faith in 
Jesus Christ (cf. Jn. 5:39; 2 Cor. 3:14; Heb. 4:2). 

(d) 2 Tim. 4:18 speaks of the coming salvation. The apostle is confident that the 
Lord will rescue him into his ~ Kingdom (here called epouranion, heavenly, i.e. es- 
chatological). In 2 Tim 2:10 Paul affirms that his sufferings are a necessary service 
for the elect, so “that they also may obtain the salvation which in Christ Jesus goes 
with eternal glory.” In 1 Tim. 4:16 the future perfection of salvation is promised to 
Timothy and his hearers, provided he shows discipline and faithfulness in teaching 
and life. 1 Tim. 2:15 points out that women will obtain it through faith, love and 
holiness without abandoning their sexual role as mothers. This may be aimed at de- 
mands for emancipation, or against a despising of the physical. But it may also be 
designed to counter a misunderstanding of Gen. 2:3, 16, especially in view of the 
allusion to Eve in vv. 13 f. (For a review of interpretations see D. Guthrie, The 
Pastoral Epistles, TC, 1957, 77 ff.; C. Spicq, Les Epitres Pastorales, 1947, 72 ff.; 
M. Dibelius and H. Conzelmann, The Pastoral Epistles, Hermeneia, 1972, 47 ff.). 

6. In 1 Pet. the apostle uses soteria, along with a number of other expressions, to 
express final salvation. Christians are guarded by God’s power through faith for this 
salvation, which is already there, but which will be revealed only in the last time 
(1:5). Christians “grow up” to this salvation through the spiritual food which they 
receive through preaching and teaching (2:2), so that finally they reach the goal of 
their faith, i.e. hymon soteria psychon (“your souls’ salvation”), the glorification 
which is to be theirs (1:9). Already the prophets had pondered on and prophesied 
about it (1:10). 

In 1 Pet. the vb. sozo is found only in 4:18 (quoting Prov. 11:31) and 3:21. In the 
latter passage > baptism expresses the saving power of God; it saves now because of 
the > resurrection of Jesus Christ from the destruction to which men become subject 
because of their sins. In this sense it is an antitype of the saving of ~ Noah and his 
family “through water” (3:20). It is noteworthy that although 1 Pet. repeatedly men- 
tions present salvation, the apostle seldom uses the word-group we are considering; 
he employs such terms as elytrothete (1:18), “you were ransomed”, anagennesas 
(1:3), “born anew”. 

In 2 Pet. 3:15 the readers are exhorted to take God’s forbearance, the chief reason 
for the delay in the parousia, as motive to be concerned with their final salvation, 
which is guaranteed only if they do not give up their efforts for sanctification. Es- 
chatology and ethics are, as with Paul, closely linked. 

7. In Hebrews Christ is the pioneer (archegos), the source (aitios) and inter- 
mediary (mesites) of the soteria, salvation (Heb. 2:10; 5:9; 7:25; > Beginning, art. 
arche NT 4; > Covenant, art. mesites NT 2). At his first coming Jesus laid the founda- 
tion for the future saving activity of God by his atoning sacrifice. As the one who 
lives for ever, he can save those who come to God through him (Heb. 7:25). At his 
second coming he will appear as the perfecter of salvation (Heb. 9:28). In all aspects 



salvation is the goal of God’s activity with men. The salvation brought by Christ is 
perfect and eternally valid (Heb. 5:9). Heb. points also to the fact that the saving 
activity of God in Christ began already with Christ’s > proclamation (Heb. 1:1 f.). 
From him it came to the hearers of his word, who passed it on, while it was con- 
firmed by God by signs, wonders, various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit 
(Heb. 2:3 f.). The — angels also have been appointed by God to serve in his revela- 
tion of salvation; they are instruments in God’s will to save (Heb. 1:14). In Heb. 6:9 
ta kreissona kai echomena soterias means “the better things that belong to 
salvation’. That is the better things to which the writer refers after his earnest exhor- 
tation, having left “the elementary doctrines” of vv. 1 f. 

8. In James, which uses only the vb. sozo, deliverance in the final judgment is 
always meant, except in Jas. 5:15 where it means to heal. The same is true of Jude, 
where both the noun (v. 3) and the vb. (v. 23) are found. In v. 5 the rescue of Israel 
from — Egypt is the subject. 

9. The word-group is little represented in the Johannine writings. Doubtless this is 
connected with the fact that in John “eternal life” is the determinative concept of the 
statements about salvation (> Life, art. zoe). soteria is found only once in the Gospel 
in the remark to the Samaritan woman: “Salvation is from the Jews” (Jn. 4:22; > 
Samaritans; > softer NT 1). sozo in the sense of salvation — bringing action occurs 4 
times. In Jn. 3:17 and 12:47 Jesus says that he has come not to judge but to save the 
world; in Jn. 5:34 the word is applied to the Jews, in Jn. 10:9 to believers. The Son of 
God is the true and only mediator of salvation. In Jn. 11:12 and 12:27 the vb. has 
the general meaning of being delivered from physical and emotional need. 

In Rev. only the noun is found, in all 3 cases in liturgical passages of worship. In 
Rev. 7:10 the great multitude attributes salvation to God and the > Lamb; this is 
heard again in Rev. 12:10 after the fall of the — dragon, and in Rev. 19:1 after the 
fall of ~ Babylon. The songs of triumph and victory proclaim that now, after the 

_conquest of all enemies of God, salvation, glory and power belong to God alone. 
J. Schneider 

owtyp (soter), saviour, deliverer, preserver; OWtNnpioc 
IP (soterios), saving, delivering, preserving, bringing salva- 
tion, means of deliverance, deliverance. 

cL 1. The noun soter, formed from sozo, includes the connotations of sozo and 
soteria. It is applied almost exclusively to the gods or men. But there are excep- 
tions, such as when it is applied to a personified river (Hdt., 8, 138, 1). 

2. The gods are saviours from the dangers of life and also protectors and preser- 
vers of men. In the oldest text attesting soter, Poseidon is addressed as the saviour of 
men (Hymni Homerici, Ad Neptunum, 22, 5. It could even be applied to a female, 
Leda (Hymni Homerici, Ad Castores, 33, 6 f.). The title was accorded to numerous 
gods, but especially to Zeus (Pindar, Ol. 5, 17; Fragment 30, 5; IG 117410, 18; Plato, 
Rep. 9, 583b; cf. Liddell-Scott, 1751; W. Foerster, TDNT VII 1004 f.). Isis and 
Serapis were also frequently called saviours (e.g. Artem., Oneirocriticum 2, 39). Also 
in the Hellenistic-Roman period Asclepius was regarded as a saviour of the sick 
(Clem.Alex., Protrepticus 2, 26, 8; cf. TDNT VII 1005). 

3. Men could also be called saviours, in saving others from trouble and danger, 



and also in the case of doctors (Soph., OT 302-4). Plato could call the ideal ruler 
who governed and preserved the state a softer in the sense of a protector (Rep. 5, 
463b). The term could also be applied to philosophers, particularly Epicurus 
(Polystratus, Herc. 346, p. 80, 5). It was widely applied to statesmen and rulers. 
Thus, Philip of Macedon was hailed by the inhabitants of Thessaly as friend, 
benefactor and saviour (Dem., Orationes 18, 43). But it is difficult to ascertain what 
religious overtones such an appellation had (cf. TDNT VII 1008). Use of the term is 
also found in Cicero Un Verrem 2, 2, 63, 154; Tusculanae Disputationes 1, 14, 32; 
De Re Republica 1, 7, 12) and various other sources. 

In the Hellenistic ruler cult the lord became part of the official title of kings, and 
divine honours were accorded them. theos soter was regularly incorporated into the 
Ptolomaic and Seleucid royal titles (for details, see TDNT VII 1009). This develop- 
ment found its strongest expression in the Roman imperial cultus. The term softer tes 
oikoumenes, saviour of the (inhabited) world, was first applied to Caesar UG 12, 5, 
1, 557), and soter tou kosmou, saviour of the world, is attested from the time of 
Hadrian, but is probably older (TDNT VII 1010; cf. W. Weber, Untersuchungen zur 
Geschichte des Kaisers Hadrian, 1907). However, soter was not incorporated into 
the official titles of the Roman rulers. The inscriptions hail Hadrian as sofer of a par- 
ticular city. The appellation “saviour of the world” was a generalization. It was rare 
for an emperor to allow himself to be called sofer on coins. The idea of the emperor 
as a benefactor was also linked with that of the golden age of peace, order and 
prosperity inaugurated by his beneficent rule. Thus the decree from Halicarnassus, 
which probably dates from the later years of Augustus in the Ist century B.C. and 
may be the copy of a general decree of the province of Asia, proclaims: “Whereas 
the eternal and immortal nature of the Universe, in its grace to men, has added a 
thing of the greatest good to the exceeding benefits already given, having brought to 
us Caesar Augustus, who in the happy life of our time is father of his own country, 
dea Roma, Zeus the Paternal, Saviour (soter) of the whole race of men, and whose 
providence has not only fulfilled but even exceeded the prayers of all — for there is 
peace on land and sea; the cities flourish in obedience to law and in concord 
(homonoia) and prosperity; and there is a culmination and abundance of all good, of 
bright hopes for the future and joy in the present, with men filled to overflowing with 
[delight in] games and offerings and sacrifices and hymns... .” (E. Barker, ed., From 
Alexander to Constantine: Passages and Documents Illustrating the History of 
Social and Political Ideas 336 B.C. — A.D. 337, |1956] 1959, 213). Similarly, the 
Priene Inscription (c. 9 B.C.) hails Augustus as “a saviour for us” (op. cit., 212; for 
text + Gospel, art. euangelion CL 2 (c)). Although the emperor is a saviour in a 
thoroughly this-worldly sense, he has been empowered in this office by the gods or 
divine providence. 

4. The adj. soterios, saving, delivering, bringing safety or deliverance to, is found 
in cl. Gk. applied both to men, e.g. someone who brings safety to the state (Soph., 
OC 487 codd.), and to the gods (BGU 362, 5, 1 [3rd cent. A.D.] ), including Zeus 
(Soph., El. 281; Fragment 425) (Liddell-Scott, 1751). 

OT softer occurs in the LXX some 36 times for the Heb. y*5i‘Gh, yeSa‘ or the parti- 
ciple méSia‘ of the vb. yaSa‘ in the hiphil. On y°37i‘ah as the proper name Joshua 

— s0zo OT I (b). 


1. In Jdg. 3:9, 15 “‘saviour” might be taken as a technical term for the judges. At 
the time of the judges, Yahweh raised up such “saviours” for Israel who rescued 
them from their enemies (cf. 12:3). ““Then the Lorp raised up judges, who saved 
[esosen| them out of the power of those who plundered them” (Jdg. 2:16). Similarly 
Ezra, reviewing the course of God’s dealings with his people, commented on Israel’s 
rebellion thus: “Therefore thou didst give them into the hand of their enemies, who 
made them suffer; and in the time of their suffering they cried unto thee and thou 
didst hear them from Heaven; and according to thy great mercies thou didst give 
them saviours who saved them [soferas kai esosas| from the hand of their enemies” 
(Neh. 9:27). Nevertheless, Jdg. 2:18 stresses that it was Yahweh who is the ultimate 
source of the saving: “Whenever the LorD raised up judges for them, the LorD was 
with the judge, and he saved them from the hand of thir enemies all the days of the 
judge; for the LorD was moved to pity by their groaning because of those who afflic- 
ted and oppressed them.” Samuel took the desire for a king as a rejection of “your 
God who saves you [LXX hos autos estin hymon soter|” (1 Sam. 10:19), ‘and the 
term is hardly ever used of the kings (cf. 2 Ki. 13:5). 

2. soter is applied above all to Yahweh, though not as a technical term. Isa. 45 
contrasts the mysteries of Yahweh’s working with the impotence of the idols. He has 
anointed the Persian king Cyrus to liberate Israel from captivity in Babylon (Isa. 
45:1). He promises the wealth of the nations to the captive Israel. The prophet cries: 
“Truly, thou art a God who hidest thyself, O God of Israel, the Saviour” (Isa. 45:15). 
Israel is saved by Yahweh “with an everlasting salvation” (v. 17). Turning to those 
who carry idols, the prophet issues the challenge: “Declare and present your case; let 
them take counsel together! Who told this long ago? Who declared it of old? Was it 
not I, the Lorp? And there is no other god besides me, a righteous God and a 
Saviour; there is none besides me. ‘Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! 
For I am God, and there is no other’ ” (Isa. 45:21 f.). Whereas v. 15 celebrates the 
mysterious working of Yahweh in history to liberate his people from exile, v. 21 has a 
universal, eschatological dimension. 

Yahweh is presented as saviour in Deut. 32:15; 1 Chr. 16:35; Pss. 24(23):5; 
25(24):5; 27(26):1, 9; 62(61):2, 6; 65(64):5; 79(78):9; 95 (94):1; Prov. 29:25 vl; 
Mic. 7:7; Hab. 3:18; Isa. 12:2; 17:10; 25:9; 62:11. Often the LXX speaks con- 
cretely of (e.g.) ““God my saviour [ho theos ho soter mou|’’, whereas the MT speaks 
of “the God of my salvation”. 

The messiah is not called soter, even though the promised king in Zech. 9:9 is 
described by the participle sozon in the LXX (on this passage ~ Humility, art. 
prays oT 2). In Isa. 49:6 LX X the Servant of Yahweh is said to be eis soterian heos 
eschatou tes ges “for salvation to the end of the earth” (cf. RSV “that my salvation 
may reach to the end of the earth’’). 

In the apocryphal books the title soter is confined to God (Wis. 16:17; Sir. 51:1; 
Bar. 4:22; 1 Macc. 4:30; 3 Macc. 6:29; 32; 7:16). In the Qumran literature there is 
nothing corresponding to the Gk. soter concept. Josephus used it only for human 
saviours, e.g. Jonathan (Ant. 6, 240; cf. TDNT VII 1014), though Philo saw God 
as the saviour of his people, the sustainer of the race and the cosmos, and the saviour 
of the soul in its struggle with the passions (TDNT VII 1015; > sozo oT 5). Apart 
from one isolated instance in rabbinic writings, the messiah was not called a saviour. 
Elsewhere, God and the messiah are described by the word go’el, redeemer ( > 



lytron oT). “There is no evidence that ‘Redeemer’ or ‘Saviour’ was a current 
Messianic title in the NT period” (W. Foerster, TDNT VII 1014). 

NT soter occurs 24 times in the NT, and in 16 of these instances it is applied to 

Christ. The remaining 8 are applied to God. It is never used of ordinary men. It is 
thus much less common than either sozo or soteria. The title is used almost ex- 
clusively in the relatively late writings of the NT (10 times in the Pastoral Epistles, 5 
times in 2 Pet.) which belong to the churches in the Hellenistic world. 

1. (a) The angel who announced the birth of Jesus to the shepherds told them not 
to be afraid, “for to you is born this day in the city of David, a Saviour, who is Christ 
the Lord” (Lk. 2:11). The use of soter here takes up the descriptions given to the 
national leaders and to God in the OT and Judaism (E. E. Ellis, The Gospel of Luke, 
New Century Bible, 1966, 80; cf. P. Winter, St7h 12, 1958, 106). In Lk. the word 
occurs elsewhere only in the Magnificat, where it is applied to God: “and my spirit 
rejoices in God my Saviour” (Lk. 1:47). The latter passage echoes Hab. 3:18. It is 
significant that in Zechariah’s psalm soferia is linked with the promised intervention 
of God (> sozo NT 2). Ellis thinks that the use of soter may also reflect the Christian 
response to the emperor cult (see above cL 3). Whereas in the Halicarnassus inscrip- 
tion Augustus was celebrated as the soter who brought peace, Jesus is the true 
bringer of peace (Lk. 2:14; on this v. > Please, art. eudokeo nT 3 (c) ). 

(b) In the proclamation of the primitive church to the Jews, Jesus is presented as 
the saviour of Israel: “God exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Saviour, to 
give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins” (Acts 5:31); “Of this man’s 
posterity God has brought to Israel a Saviour, Jesus, as he promised” (Acts 13:23: > 
David). This preaching clearly draws a distinction between Jesus and God. At the 
same time, it draws attention to the uniqueness of Jesus as the divinely appointed and 
empowered one whom God had chosen as the instrument of salvation. It was 
precisely this that was the point of conflict between the church and the Jews. 

(c) In Jn. it is left to the ~ Samaritans to conclude: “It is no longer because of 
your [the Samaritan woman’s] words that we believe, for we have heard for our- 
_ Selves, and we know that this is indeed the Saviour of the world” (Jn. 4:42). This con- 
trasts with Jesus’ reminder to the Samaritan woman: “You worship what you do not 
know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews” (Jn. 4:22). In the 
latter v. Jesus draws attention to the futility of Samaritan worship (— Prayer, art. 
proskyneo nT 4), and that salvation is bound up with Judaism and comes from within 
it. But paradoxically Jn. 4:42 brings out its universal aspect. There is also the further 
paradox implied by Jn., that the Samaritans have seen this and responded to it in the 
person of Jesus, whereas the Jews have not. 

2. (a) In the Pauline Epistles to churches softer is found only twice. Phil. 3:20 re- 
minds its readers of their eschatological existence and expectation in the midst of the 
trials of the present life: “But our commonwealth is in heaven, and from it we await a 
Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will change our lowly body to be like his 
glorious body, by the power which enables him even to subject all things to himself” 
(on “commonwealth” — People, art. polis NT 5). 

Eph. 5:21—33 is an exhortation to mutual love and respect within the — marriage 
relationship which is seen as an image of Christ and the church: “For the husband is 
the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its 



saviour” (Eph. 5:23x; + Head; — Body). Christ is the saviour, because he gave him- 
self up to death for his church and cleansed her by the washing of water and the 
word, in order to present her for himself pure and glorious, when salvation is perfec- 
ted (vv. 25 ff.). 

(b) In the Pastoral Epistles soter occurs relatively more frequently than in any 
other NT writings: 6 times for God and 4 times for Christ. This title for God links 
with the usage of the LXX (e.g. Pss. 25(24):5; 27(26):9; Hab. 3:18; Sir. 51:1). 

(i) The statements in the Pastorals about God as Saviour show that God’s offer of 
salvation is universal. They are in contrast to the exclusive attitude of the synagogue 
and of the gnostics, who promised salvation only to the righteous or to those possess- 
ing knowledge. The true and living God is the saviour of all men (1 Tim. 4:10), and 
he has instituted preaching, that the message of salvation might become known to all 
men, so that they might come to faith (Tit. 1:3). But God is in particular our saviour, 
because Christians have accepted salvation and stand in faith (1 Tim. 4:10; cf. Tit. 
1:3). They must live a life that adorns the doctrine of God our saviour (Tit. 2:10). 
But already in the next sentence (v. 11), Paul declares that the grace of God is 
revealed above all in its power, bringing salvation to all men, by the new life of the 
church-members, even of the slaves, being seen. The saving plans of God embrace 
all, and he is concerned to make them a reality in every way possible. In the introduc- 
tion to 1 Tim. (1:1), God and Christ are called Saviour in the same way. 

(ii) The passages which speak of the Saviour Christ are, apart from 2 Tim. 1:10, 
all in Tit. They furnish an all-embracing picture of God’s activity for our salvation. 

To the world God has manifested his purpose to save men, made before eternal 
ages, through the first appearing of Jesus Christ (2 Tim. 1:10). In the Saviour Christ, 
the goodness and loving kindness of God appeared (Tit. 3:4), which are qualities 
which were specially praised in Hellenistic rulers, but are here transferred to God. 
According to 2 Tim 1:10, the saving work of Christ consisted in his gpousmme: death 
and bringing immortal — life to light. 

Through his free purpose, decided before eternal ages, and through his grace 
revealed in Christ — and hence not on the basis of their works — believers are already 
saved. Through cleansing and regeneration God has saved us according to his 
mercy. The pouring out of the Holy — Spirit has come richly through our Saviour 
Jesus Christ (Tit. 3:5 f.; > Birth, art. palingenesia). 

Believers, as those justified by the grace of God, wait for the perfection of salva- 
tion (Tit. 3:7), and for the fulfilment of their hope, which they will receive through the 
appearing of the great God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ (Tit. 2:13, cf. AV, RV 
mg., RSV mg., NEB mg.). The translation, “Awaiting our blessed hope, the appear- 
ing of the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ” (cf. RV tx., RSV tx., 
NEB tx.; Funk § 276 (3); Moule 109 f.), is linguistically possible but contradicts the 
otherwise rigorously maintained distinction in the Pastorals between God and Christ. 
The transference to Jesus of the attribute of God, “great God’’, firmly rooted in late 
Judaism would be unique in the NT (J. Jeremias in J. Jeremias, Die Briefe an 
Timotheus und Titus, NTD 9, 1968, 65). In spite of this, the majority of British ex- 
egetes prefer the latter rendering. Apart from the fact that it is the natural gram- 
matical rendering, it is pointed out that nowhere else is epiphaneia, appearing, used 
of God (> Revelation). 

The term “Jesus Christ our Saviour” cannot be derived directly from the OT, for 



there the messiah is never called saviour (see above OT 2). Jesus never called himself 
soter. Nor do we find the term so used in the older strata of NT tradition, rooted in 
Palestinian concepts. The designation of Jesus as softer is found “first hesitatingly, 
then increasingly in the Hellenistic sphere” (J. Jeremias, N7D 9, 45). From the 
assumption that expressions from the imperial cultus are repeatedly applied to Christ 
(e.g. 2 Tim. 1:10; Tit.3:4), the conclusion was drawn that the designation of Jesus as 
soter was borrowed from this cultus. J. Jeremias considers that this explanation 
covered only part of the facts. “The roots of this designation of Jesus as Saviour are 
older.” Matt. 1:21 shows that “the oldest churches, using Aram. or Syr., explained 
the name Jesus, literally ‘Yahweh is salvation’, as ‘Bringer of salvation’. This ex- 
planation of the name of Jesus could be the reason that Jesus was called Saviour 
(soter) in the Gk.-speaking areas, the oldest extant example being Phil. 3:20” 
(J. Jeremias). The title Saviour was necessary to help the Greeks understand what 
the title messiah (> Anoint) implied for the Jews. 

3. 2 Pet. uses soter, generally linked with the title kyrios (> Lord), comparatively 
frequently to identify Christ. The letter is addressed ““To those who have obtained a 
faith of equal standing with ours in the righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus 
Christ: May grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of 
Jesus our Lord” (2 Pet. 1:1 f.). The readers are exhorted to confirm their call and 
election, “so there will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal king- 
dom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ” (2 Pet. 1:11). 2 Pet. 2:20 contains a 
warning against being enslaved to the passions: “‘For if, after they have escaped the 
defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus 
Christ, they are again entangled in them and overpowered, the last state has become 
worse than the first.” 2 Pet. 3:2 seeks to arouse the “sincere mind”, “that you should 
remember the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord 
and Saviour through your apostles.” Here Christianity may be seen in terms of a new 
law (cf. 2:21). The letter closes with a prayer taking up again the theme of knowledge 
which doubtless includes that of the commandment of Christ: “But grow in the grace 
and knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now 
and to the day of eternity. Amen” (2 Pet. 3:18). Similarly, Jude 25 concludes: “to the 
only God, our Saviour through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, 
and authority, before all time and now and for ever. Amen.” 

4. soterios is used as an adj. in Tit. 2:11 which may be translated: “for the grace 
of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men” (Arndt, 809). Elsewhere it is 
used in the neut. as a noun in the NT and early Christian literature of messianic 
salvation and the one who mediates it (Lk. 2:30; 3:6 [ = Isa. 40:5]; Acts 28:28 | = 
Ps. 67:2] ). J. Schneider, C. Brown 
~+ Anger, > Cross, > Faith, - Forgiveness, ~ Holy, ~ Judgment, — Present, > 
Reconciliation, > Sacrifice, > Sin 

(a). R. Banks, “Matthew’s Understanding of the Law: Authenticity and Interpretation in Matthew 
5:17—20”, JBL 93, 1974, 226-42; and Jesus and the Law in the Synoptic Tradition, Society for New 
Testament Studies Monograph Series 28, 1975; R. S. Barbour, “Salvation and Cosmology: The Setting 
of the Epistle to the Colossians”, SJT 20, 1967, 257-71; J. B. Bauer, “Redemption”, EBT II 738—41, 
T. Boman, Hebrew Thought Compared with Greek, 1960; S. G. F. Brandon, ed., The Saviour God: 
Comparative Studies in the Concept of Salvation presented to Edwin Oliver James, 1963; J. R. Branton, 
“Paul and Salvation”, Crozier Quarterly 24, 1947, 228-40; F. F. Bruce, “Paul and the Law of Moses”, 
BJRL 57, 1975, 259-79; and Paul and Jesus, 1977; A. Biichler, Studies in Sin and Atonement in the 



Rabbinic Literature of the First Century, 1928; L. Cerfaux, Christ in the Theology of St Paul, 1959; C. 
E. B. Cranfield, “On Some of the Problems in the Interpretation of Romans 5:12”, SJT 22, 1969, 
324-41; and The Epistle to the Romans, ICC, 1, 1975; O. Cullmann, “Eschatology and Missions in the 
New Testament’, in W. D. Davies and D. Daube, eds., The Background of the New Testament and its 
Eschatology. In Honour of Charles Harold Dodd, 1956, 409-21; The Christology of the New 
Testament, 1963’; Christ and Time: The Primitive Christian Conception of Time and History, 1951; 
and Salvation in History, 1967; W. Dantine, “Creation and Redemption: Attempt at a Theological In- 
terpretation in the Light of the Contemporary Understanding of the World’, S/T 18, 1965, 129-47; D. | 
Daube, The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism, Jordan Lectures 1952, 1956, 268-84; R. David- 
son, “Universalism in Second Isaiah”, SJT 16, 1963, 166-85; W. D. Davies, ““Matthew 5:17, 187’, in 
Christian Origins and Judaism, 1962, 31—66; J. D. M. Derrett, “The Trial of Jesus and the Doctrine of 
Redemption”, in Law in the New Testament, 1970, 389-460; J. Downing, “Jesus and Martyrdom”, 
JTS New Series 14, 1963, 279-93; D. J. Doughty, “The Presence and Future of Salvation in Corinth”, 
ZNW 66, 1975, 61-90; J. W. Drane, Paul — Libertine or Legalist? A Study in the Theology of the Ma- 
jor Pauline Epistles, 1975; J. C. Fenton, “Destruction and Salvation in the Gospel according to St 
Mark”, JTS New Series 3, 1952, 56 ff.; W. Foerster and G. Fohrer, sozo etc., TDNT VIII 965—1024; J. 
G. Gibbs, “Interpretations of the Relation between Creation and Redemption”, SJT 21, 1968, 1-12; 
Creation and Redemption: A Study in Pauline Theology, Supplements to NovT 26, 1971; and “The 
Cosmic Scope of Redemption according to Paul’, Biblica 56, 1975, 13-29; E. M. B. Green, The Mean- 
ing of Salvation, 1965; G. W. Grogan, “The Experience of Salvation in the Old and New Testaments”, 
Vox Evangelica 5, 1967, 4-26; F. Hahn, The Titles of Jesus in Christology, 1969; M. Hengel, 
Crucifixion in the Ancient World and the Folly of the Message of the Cross, 1977; D. Hill, Greek Words 
and Hebrew Meanings: Studies in the Semantics of Soteriological Terms, Society for New Testament 
Studies Monograph Series 5, 1967; A. R. Johnson, “The Primary Meaning of g?’, VT Supplements 1, 
1953, 67-77; W. Kasch, rhyomai, TDNT VI 998-1003; E. F. Kevan, Salvation, 1963; D. A. Leggett, 
The Levirate and Goel Institutions in the Old Testament with Special Attention to the Book of Ruth, 
1974; E. Lohse, History of the Suffering and Death of Jesus Christ, 1967; S. Lyonnet and L. Sabourin, 
Sin, Redemption, and Sacrifice: A Biblical and Patristic Study, Analecta Biblica 48, 1970; M. E. 
Mclver, “The Cosmic Dimensions of Salvation in the Thought of St Paul”, Worship 40, 1966, 156-64; 
I. H. Marshall, “The Development of the Concept of Redemption in the New Testament’, in R. J. 
Banks, ed., Reconciliation and Hope: New Testament Essays on Atonement and Eschatology presented 
to L. L. Morris, 1974, 153-69; J. S. Mbiti, “ho soter hemon as an African Experience”, in B. Lindars 
and S. S. Smalley, eds., Christ and Spirit in the New Testament. In Honour of Charles Francis Digby 
Moule, 1973, 397-414; J. P. Meier, “Salvation—History in Matthew: In Search of a Starting Point”, 
CBRQ 37, 1975, 203-15; L. Morris, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross, (1955) 1965°; and The Cross 
in the New Testament, 1967; W. G. Most, “A Biblical Theology of Redemption in a Covenant 
Framework”, CBQ 29, 1967, 1-19; J. Munck, Paul and the Salvation of Mankind, 1959; J. Murray, 
Redemption — Accomplished and Applied, 1955; and The Epistle to the Romans, NLC, III, 1960-65; 
S. Neill, Salvation Tomorrow, 1976; R. E. Nixon, The Exodus in the New Testament, 1963; W. Pan- 
nenberg, ““Redemptive Event and History”, in Basic Questions in Theology, I, 1970, 15—80; A. D. 
Nock, “Soter and Euergetes”, The Joy of Study, Festschrift for F. C. Grant, 1951, 126—48; O. 
Procksch and F. Buchsel, lyo etc., TDNT IV 328-56; G. von Rad, Old Testament Theology, I-II, 
1962-65; H. F. Rall, Religion as Salvation, 1953; H. N. Ridderbos, “The Earliest Confession of the 
Atonement in Paul”, in R. J. Banks, ed., op. cit., 76-89; H. Ringgren, ga’al etc., TDOT II 350-55; J. T. 
Ross, The Conception of soteria in the New Testament, 1947; H. H. Rowley, The Servant of the Lord 
and Other Essays on the Old Testament, 1965*; E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Com- 
parison of Patterns of Religion, 1977; J. F. A. Sawyer, Semantics in Biblical Research: New Methods of 
Defining Hebrew Words for Salvation, SBT Second Series 24, 1972; H. J. Schoeps, Paul: The Theology 
of the Apostle in the Light of Jewish Religious History, 1961, 126-67; E. G. Selwyn, “Eschatology in I 
Peter”, in W. D. Davies and D. Daube, eds., op. cit., 394-401; R. Sklba, “The Redeemer of Israel’, 
CBO 34, 1972, 14 ff.; C. Ryder Smith, The Bible Doctrine of Salvation, 19467; K. Stendahl, Paul 
among Jews and Gentiles, and other essays, 1977; G. B. Stevens, The Christian Doctrine of Salvation, 
1905; V. Taylor, Jesus and His Sacrifice: A Study of the Passion Sayings in the Gospels, 1937; 
Forgiveness and Reconciliation: A Study of New Testament Theology, 1941; The Atonement in New 
Testament Preaching, (1940) 1958°; The Names of Jesus, 1954; W. C. van Unnik, “Dominus vobiscum: 
The Background of a Liturgical Formula’, in A. J. B. Higgins, ed., New Testament Essays: Studies in 
Memory of Thomas Walter Manson, 1959, 270-305; R. de Vaux, Ancient Israel: Its Life and 



Institutions, 1961; B. B. Warfield, The Plan of Salvation, revised edition 1955; D. E. H. Whiteley, The 
Theology of St Paul, 1974’, 130-54; R. McL. Wilson, “SOTERIA”, SJT 6, 1953, 406-16; the World 
Council of Churches Bangkok Assembly dealt with the theme of Salvation Today (relevant to it are the 
following: T. Wieser, ed., Biblical Perspectives on Salvation: A Selection of Biblical Texts with 
Comments, 1972; Salvation Today and Contemporary Experience, 1972; Salvation Today: Bangkok, 
29 December 1972 to 8 January 1973, 1972; Bangkok Assembly 1973: Minutes and Report of the 
Assembly of the Commission on World Mission and Evangelism of the World Council of Churches, 
December 31, 1972 and January 9-12, 1973, 1973; International Review of Mission 57 and 61, issues 
for October 1968 on “Salvation Today” and January 1972 on “Salvation Today II”; P. Webb, 
Salvation Today, 1974; R. Winter, ed., The Evangelical Response to Bangkok, 1973; and P. Beyerhaus, 
Bangkok 73: The Beginning or End of World Mission?, 1974, containing documents, detailed critique 
and extensive bibliography); R. Zehnle, ““The Salvific Character of Jesus’ Death in Lucan Soteriology”, 
TS 30, 1969, 420-44. 

(b). F. Bammel, H.-J. Kraus, P. Vielhauer, C. Andresen and L. Richter, “Erlosung”, RGG?II 576-99; 
C. Barth, Die Errettung vom Tode in den individuellen Klage- und Dankliedern des Alten Testaments, 
1947; L. Bieler, theios aner, I, 1935, 120 ff.; M. Carrez, “La Signification actuelle pour ‘Histoire du 
Salut’ du visible et de l’invisible dans Ja Pensée Paulinienne”’, in F. Christ, ed., Oikonomia. 
Heilsgeschichte als Thema der Theologie, Oscar Cullmann zum 65. Geburtstag gewidmet, 1967; L. Cer- 
faux and J. Tondriau, Le Culte des Souverains, 1957; J. B. Colon, ““La Conception du Salut d’apres les 
Evangiles synoptiques”, RSR 9, 1929, 472-507; ibid. 10, 1930, 1-38, 189-217, 370-415; ibid. 11, 
1931, 27-70, 193-223, 382-412; G. Dautzenberg, “Soferia psychon (1 Petr. 1, 9)”, BZ 8, 1964, 
262 ff.; F. Dorner, soter, Pauly-Wissowa, IIIa 1211—21; W. Elert, “Redemptio ab hostibus”, TLZ 72, 
1947, 265 ff.; E. Ellwein, Heilsgegenwart und Heilszukunft im Neuen Testament, ThEH 114, 1964; M. 
Goguel, “Le Caractere, a la Fois actuel et futur, du Salut dans la Theologie Paulinienne”’, in W. D. 
Davies and D. Daube, eds., op. cit., 322-41; H. Gunkel, Schopfung und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit. 
Eine religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung uber Gen. 1 und Apoc. Joh. 12, 1895; A. H. Haerens, “Soter 
et Soteria”, Studia Hellenica 5, 1948, 57-68; P. Heinisch, Christus der Erloser, 1955; S. Herrmann, 
Die prophetische Heilserwartungen im Alten Testament, 1965; A. Jepsen, “Die Begriffe des ‘Erlosens’ 
im Alten Testament”, Solange es “Heute” heisst. Festschrift fiir R. Herrmann, 1957, 153-63; J. 
Jeremias, “Das Losegeld fiir viele”, Judaica 3, 1948, 249 ff.; E. Kasemann, “Zum Verstandnis vom 
Rom. 3, 24-26”, ZNW 43, 1950-51, 150 ff.; A. Kirchgassner, Erlosung und Stinde, 1950; G. Kittel, 
“Jesu Worte tber sein Sterben”, Deutsche Theologie 3, 1936, 166 ff.; G. Ladmer, “Erneuerung”, RAC 
VI 241 ff.; E. Lohmeyer, Der Begriff Erlosung, 1928; H. Linsenn, “theos soter”, Jahrbuch fur 
Liturgiewissenschaft 8, 1928, 1-75; E. Lohse, Martyrer und Gottesknecht. Untersuchungen zur 
urchristlichen Verkundigung vom Siuhntod Jesu Christi, FRLANT 46, 1955; L. De Lorenzi, “Alcuni 
temi di Salvezza nella letteratura di Qumran”, Riv. Bib. It. 5, 1957, 197-253; S. Lyonnet, De Peccato et 
Redemptione, 1958; U. Mauser, “Galater iii. 20: die Universalitat des Heils’”, NTS 13, 1966-67, 
258-70; W. Otto, “Soter”, Hermes 45, 1910, 448-60; J. Roloff, “Anfange der soteriologischen 
Deutung des Todes Jesu (Mk. X. 45 und Lk. XxII. 27), NTS 19, 1972-73, 38-44; K. Priimm, 
“Herrscherkult und Neues Testament”, Biblica 9, 1928, 3-25, 129-42, 289-301; K. H. Rengstorf, 
“Die Anfange der Auseinandersetzung zwischen Christusglaube und Asklepiusfr6mmigkeit”, Schriften 
der Gesellschaft zur Forderung der Westfalischen Landesuniversitat zu Muinster 30, 1953, 8-19; L. 
Sabourin, Rédemption Sacrificielle: Une Enquéte Exégétique, Studia 11, 1961; A. Schlatter, Der 
Evangelist Matthdus, 1963°, 510 ff., 555 f., 604 ff.; W. Staerk, Sorter, I-II, 1933-38; J. J. Stamm, 
Erlésen und Vergeben im Alten Testament, 1940; and padah, THAT II 389-406; F. Stolz, yaSa‘, THAT 
I 785-90; W. Wagner, “Uber sozo und seine Derivate im Neuen Testament”, ZNW 6, 1905, 205-35: 
H. W. Wolff, Jesaja 53 im Urchristentum, 1953°. 

: uévw (meno), remain; €uuévw (emmeno), stay or remain in, 
persevere, abide by; é€ziyévaw (epimeno), stay, remain, con- 
tinue (in); zapayévw (parameno), remain, stay on, continue in; zpoouévw (prosmeno), 


remain, stay with, remain longer; zepiuévw (perimeno), wait; uovy (mone), staying, 
tarrying, dwelling (-place), room, abode. 

CL meno, found already in Homer, is related to Lat. maneo; intrans. it means to 

remain in one place, at a given time, with someone. Metaphorically, it can mean 
to keep an agreement, to remain in a particular sphere of life (with en), to make a 
stand against difficult circumstances (e.g. illness or death), and changes in general 
(cf. hoi menontes, the fixed stars (Aristotle, Cael. 290 a, 21) ). Hence meno can be 
used of that which remains valid in law, e.g. a diatheke, a will (2 Covenant). In 
religious language, it is used for the gods, or that inspired by them (e.g. nous, mind; 
ideai, ideas), as having continuing existence. It is only seldom used trans., with the 
force of waiting for, or expecting someone or something. 

oT In the LXX meno translates some 16 Heb. words, the commonest being ‘amad 

(stand, remain) and qm (arise, stand). It only seldom means to remain in one 
place (e.g. Exod. 9:28; Lev. 13:23). Sometimes it means to wait (e.g. Gen. 45:9; Job 
36:2). Generally it is concerned with the existence or continuing validity of 
something. A vow is valid (Num. 30:4 [5]; 30:9 [10]), or invalid (Num. 30:5, 12, [6, 
13] ). The wealth of the godless does not endure (Job 15:29). The salvation of the 
righteous endures for ever (Ps. 112[111]:3, 9). 

It is, therefore, particularly used of God. His relationship with man ( > Righteous- 
ness) is not severed by him (Ps. 112[111]:3, 9), and hence his word (Isa. 40:8) and 
truth (Ps. 117[116]:2) endure. God waits to have mercy (Isa. 30:18). Especially in 
the Pss. and Isa. God’s constancy is stressed as a characteristic in contrast to the 
changeability of the gods and the transitory nature of the world. We do not find this 
as a merely abstract theological statement, but always in the living context of the 
worship and praise of God. God is the living one who endures for ever (Dan. 6:26; 
Ps. 102[101]:12; meno represents giim, arise, and yaSab, dwell, respectively). Hu- 
manity, opposed to God, perishes under his > judgment and wrath, but the new > 
heavens, the new - earth and the people of God will remain (Isa. 66:22). Just as 
Yahweh abides, so does his — name (Ps. 72[71]:17, though here without meno), his 
plan or counsel (Ps. 33[32]:11; Isa. 14:24), his > righteousness (Ps. 111[110]:3) and 
his praise (Ps. 111[110]:10). 

NT 1. Of the 118 instances of meno, 40 are found in Jn. and 24 in the Johannine 
Epistles. Here it is used with a special christological force (see 4, below). The nor- 
mal secular Gk. uses of the word are also found in the NT. 

(a) Intrans., meno means to remain, e.g., to stay in a place (Lk. 19:5), or with 
someone (Lk. 24:29; Matt. 26:38); to continue to exist for a specific time (Matt. 
11:23); to live (Jn. 1:38); or metaphorically to hold fast, or remain steadfast, e.g., in a 
teaching (2 Tim. 3:14, 2 Jn. 9), in fellowship with (Jn. 14:10), in the unmarried state 
(1 Cor. 7:40), to stand firm, pass the test, e.g. when one’s works are judged (1 Cor. 
3:14); to live on, and not to have died (1 Cor. 15:6). 

(b) Trans., meno means to wait for (Acts 20:5, 23). 

2. The NT continues the thought of the OT and speaks of the unchanging charac- 
ter of God who maintains his word (1 Pet. 1:23; cf. Dan. 6:26; 1 Pet. 1:25, quoting 
Isa. 40:8) and his counsel, i.e. he continues and carries through his plan of election in 



human history (Rom. 9:11). In the NT, God’s constancy has been made visible in 
the sending and life of Jesus, the messiah, who continues for ever (Heb. 7:24). Those 
who have been born anew through the abiding word of God (1 Pet. 1:23) receive 
from the Holy — Spirit not only ecstatic experiences from time to time, but the power 
of God abides continually in them (1 Jn. 2:27). He who confesses that Jesus is the 
Son of God abides in God, i.e. is bound to him by God’s love (1 Jn. 4:14 f.). He does 
not seek for an abiding city here (Heb. 13:14), but has abiding possessions in heaven 
(Heb. 10:34). 7 

Paul points out that, in contrast to the service by ~ Moses, which was transitory, 
the new service of the Spirit and of righteousness is permanent (2 Cor. 3:7—11), and 
with it faith, hope and love (1 Cor. 13:15), above all love (cf. 13:8) by which he knew 
himself controlled (cf. 2 Cor. 5:14). 

3. Since the final and lasting state which Christ will bring is coming, human effort 
for change and for self-fulfilment in this transitory life loses its attraction, and man ts 
freed from it. Since there is a new focus for Christians, they can and should give up 
their personal social advancement as their goal in life and the expectation that — 
marriage will fulfil every hope. It is best to remain quietly as they are. That is why 
Paul could advise the Christians in Corinth, “Were you a slave when called? Never 
mind” (1 Cor. 7:21). The unmarried and widows should remain unmarried unless 
they cannot exercise self-control, otherwise “‘it is better to marry than to be aflame 
with passion” (1 Cor. 7:8 f.). All their energies should be concentrated on the dawn- 
ing kingdom of God and all their efforts should be given to remaining in love and true 
faith (1 Tim. 2:15; 2 Tim. 3:14). 

4. In Jn. the secular Gk. meno en gained a meaning parallel to the Pauline concep- 
tion of Christ’s dwelling in the believer (Rom. 8:9 ff.) and his dwelling in Christ. It 1s 
even expanded and strengthened (cf. F. Hauck, TDNT IV 576). 

(a) On the one hand, meno expresses the closest possible relationship between 
Father and Son: “The Father who dwells in me [en emoi menon| does his works” (Jn. 
14:10). The unbroken fellowship of Jesus with the Father “causes the word of Jesus 
to be the word of God and his work to be the work of God” (A. Schlatter, Der 
Evangelist Johannes, 19603, 295). Christ was not called, like a prophet, for a par- 
ticular task and a limited period; his whole person remains in lasting and special 
nearness to the Father (Jn. 1:32), just as the son, in contrast to the slave, continues 
for ever in the father’s > house (Jn. 8:35). “His fellowship with men would be 
powerless and valueless, had he not as recipient of the Spirit acted in oneness with 
the Father” (A. Schlatter, op. cit., 51, on Jn. 1:32). For further discussion of this 
relationship — Son of God. 

(b) Then there is depicted the closest possible relationship between Christ and the 
believer; Jesus calls men to remain in this fellowship, and guarantees for the believer 
that he also will remain in it (Jn. 15:4 f.). Here a distinction is made between Jesus’ 
being with them (meno en, Jn. 15:4 f.) and his being in them after his death and 
resurrection (meno en, Jn. 15:4 f.). This abiding of Jesus in the believer was 
proclaimed in the promise that the Holy Spirit would abide in them (Jn. 14:17; 1 Jn. 
2:27; + Advocate, art. parakletos). | 

The statement that Christ abides in the believer is a statement with an indubitably 
mystical element; it creates an inner unity, a unio mystica. (One of Paul’s ways of ex- 
pressing this relationship is to use the picture of the body, which is not found in Jn.) 



But this does not mean that God is absorbed in man, and so could be found in him 
by a mystic plumbing of the depths of personality. Rather Christ’s abiding in his 
own is inseparably linked with the abiding of his > word in them (Jn. 15:7; 1 Jn. 2:24; 
cf. Jn. 8:31) and with the continual acceptance of the reconciling power which flows 
from the death of Jesus. This is expressed in Jn. above all in the words: ‘“‘He who eats 
my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and IJ in him” (Jn. 6:56). This concept ex- 
presses the real meaning of the — Lord’s Supper for Jn. In this inner fellowship be- 
tween Christ and the believer “the loyalty that is demanded is not primarily a con- 
tinued being for, but a being from; it is not the holding of a position, but an allowing 
oneself to be held, corresponding to the relationship of the klema [branch] to the 
ampelos |vine]. In this sense the relationship can be a reciprocal one; indeed it must 
be” (R. Bultmann, The Gospel of John, 1971, 535 f., on Jn. 15:4). 

(c) Such an abiding in Christ makes a man Christ’s property right down to the 
depths of his being. It is not confined to spiritual relationship or agreement, but 
means present experience of salvation and hence = life (Jn. 6:57). Therefore “he who 
says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked” (1 Jn. 2:6). 
The indwelling Christ, or life through the word of Christ, demands and forms a life 
conforming to his spirit and nature, and wills and brings about sanctification. “He 
who does the will of God abides for ever” (1 Jn. 2:17). Abiding in Christ is the same 
as bearing — fruit (Jn. 15:5). If there is no fruit, it is a sign that the fellowship has 
already been interrupted (Jn. 15:6; 1 Jn. 3:6). Where this is true, the wrath of God 
rests upon the unbeliever (Jn. 3:36). “The relationship of a man to God is finally 
determined by the way in which he is related to the word of Jesus” (A. Schlatter, op. 
cit., 112). Jn. makes this clear once more in 15:9—17 which is par. to 15:1—8. “To 
abide in love, which is what is demanded of the disciple, means continuing in the love 
he has received, in the state of being loved; it means — and this has already been 
stated in v. 4 — that his existence is to be based completely on the Revealer’s service, 
as the foot washing had already made clear symbolically” (R. Bultmann, op. cit., 
540, on Jn. 15:9; cf. Jn. 13:1-20). Abiding in love becomes a reality in action (Jn. 
15:10), in the bearing of continuing fruit (Jn. 15:16), which for example becomes 
visible in unbounded love of the brethren (1 Jn. 2:10; 3:14 f.). K. Munzer 

5. (a) The compound emmeno, stay or remain in, persevere, continue in, is found 
in secular Gk. It occurs in the LXX for hakdh in the sense of the righteous waiting 
on God (Isa. 30:18; Dan. 12:12), and 8 times for giim, especially in sayings about 
abiding by one’s word and agreements (Num. 23:19; Deut. 19:15; 27:26: Isa. 7:7: 
8:10; 28:18; Jer. 44[51]:25, 28). It is without Heb. equivalent at Sir. 2:10; 6:20: 
7:22; 11:21; 28:6; 39:11; 1 Macc. 10:26 f.; Dan. 6:13(12) LXX. In the NT it occurs 
only 4 times. After their initial missionary work, Paul and Barnabas returned to 
Lystra, Iconium and Antioch, “strengthening the souls of the disciples, exhorting 
them to continue in the faith |emmenein te pistei|, and saying that through many 
tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God” (Acts 14:22). The Book of Acts 
ends with Paul remaining in Rome two whole years at his own expense, welcoming 
all who came to him, preaching the kingdom of God and teaching openly and unhin- 
dered about the Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 28:30 f.). emmeno has the sense of “‘abide 
by” in Gal. 3:10, where Paul cites Deut. 27:26 to show the impossibility of keeping 
the law as a way of salvation: “For all who rely on the law are under a curse: for it is 



written, ‘Cursed be every one who does not abide by all things written in the book of 
the law, and do them.’ ”’ In Heb. 8:9 (alluding to Jer. 31:32) it has the sense of “con- 
tinue in”: “not like the:covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I 
~ took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; for they did not con- 
tinue in my covenant, and so I paid no heed to them, says the Lord.” In its place, 
Yahweh promises a new > covenant written on the heart (v. 10), and Heb. argues 
that this has now been established by Christ (Heb. 8:6—13; 10:14—18). 

(b) epimeno, stay, remain, is found in secular Gk. from Homer onwards, but oc- 
curs in the LXX only at Exod. 12:39 (for mahah, linger, tarry). It is used in a lit. 
sense in Acts 10:48; 21:4, 10; 28:12, 14; 1 Cor. 16:7 f.; Gal. 1:18. The reason for 
the stay is frequently connected with Christian service. In Phil. 1:24 Paul, reflecting 
on his possible imminent execution, writes: “But to remain in the flesh |to de 
epimenein [en] te sarki| is more necessary on your account.” Hence, he is convinced 
that his life will be spared for the sake of continued service. On the other hand, to die 
is gain (Phil. 1:21) because it brings release from earthly troubles and brings one into 
the more immediate presence of Christ. Nevertheless, Paul is willing to reject this 
“sain” for the sake of his pastoral care (cf. D. W. Palmer, “ ‘To Die is Gain’ (Philip- 
pians 1:21)”, NovT 17, 1975, 203-18). 

epimeno has the fig. sense of continue, persist (in), persevere, with the dat. Thus, 
Peter continued knocking on the door after his escape from prison (Acts 12:16). In 
the pericope concerning the woman taken in adultery, the Jews continued to ask 
Jesus until he gave the reply: “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to 
throw a stone at her” (Jn. 8:7; cf. Lev. 20:10; Deut. 13:10; 17:7; 22:2 ff.; Sanhedrin 
7:4; 11:1; Sotah 47; on this see further J. D. M. Derrett, ““The Woman Taken in 
Adultery”, in Law in the New Testament, 1970, 156-88). 

The fig. use is found in theological contexts in the sense of continuing in sin (Rom. 
6:1), which Paul rejects on the grounds that to desire to do so 1s utterly incompatible 
with dying and rising with Christ as represented by baptism. The liberty we have 
through justification by faith is not a liberty to sin but to live out the life of Christ. 
Later on in Rom. Paul discusses the status of the Jews as the people of God with 
regard to the saving purposes of God, using the image of pruning and grafting into 
the — olive tree. ““Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward 
those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided that you continue in his 
kindness [ean epimenes te chrestoteti|; otherwise you too will be cut off. And even 
the others, if they do not persist in their unbelief |ean me epimenosin te apistia}, will 
be grafted in, for God has power to graft them in again” (Rom. 11:22 f.). Thus, Paul 
envisages the possibility of the Jews being once more incorporated into the people of 
God through a return to faith. But for the present they are no longer the people of 
God, and they will never again become the people of God in the sense that they were 
before. The church is the new people of God, though there is the possibility of the 
Jews being grafted into this people (perhaps comparable with the way in which Gen- 
tiles were grafted into the Jewish nation prior to Christ). However, the continuance of 
the Gentiles is also conditional upon their continuance in God’s kindness (— Good, 
art. chrestos). The warning is comparable with that in Heb. 3:15 ff.; 4:1-13: 6:1-8 
(cf. Ps. 95:7 f.). 

A similar warning is issued in Col. 1:23. It follows the reminder: “And you, who 
were once estranged and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, he has now reconciled in 



his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and 
irreproachable before him, provided that you continue in the faith lei ge epimenete te 
pistei|, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel which you 
heard, which has been preached to every creature under heaven, and of which I, 
Paul, became a minister” (Col. 1:21 ff.). In all these passages, where epimeno is used 
in connexion with salvation there is a paradox: reconciliation and redemption are the 
free gifts of God, but they need to be appropriated and lived out. Continuance and 
perseverance are essential features of the life of faith. 

In 1 Tim. 4:16 Timothy is exhorted to “Take heed to yourself and to your 
teaching: hold to that |epimene autois|, for by so doing you will save both yourself 
and your hearers.” Again there is the same stress on perseverance, but it is now ex- 
pressly linked with teaching (didaskalia; — Teach, art. didasko). In Col. and 1 Tim. 
the perseverance is related to “the faith” (Col. 1:23) and “teaching” (1 Tim. 4:16). 
These expressions suggest a situation in which it was felt that it was not enough for 
believers to be exhorted to persevere. In view of the false teaching and dangers of the 
times it was necessary for them to be guided by a defined body of truth. 

(c) parameno, remain, stay on, continue in, is found from Homer onwards. In the 
LXX it translated yasab (dwell, remain) at Gen. 44:33 and ‘amad (stand) at Prov. 
12:7 and Dan. 11:17 (Theodotion). It is without Heb. equivalent at Jud. 12:7, 9; Sir. 
6:8, 10; 11:17; 38:19. In the NT Paul, faced with the prospect of execution, tells the 
Philippians that he would prefer to be with Christ, but that it is more necessary to 
remain in the flesh on their account. “Convinced of this, I know that I shall remain 
and continue with you all, for your progress and joy in the faith” (Phil. 1:25). This 
may be compared with the use of meno with para (see above). Heb. 7 argues for the 
superiority of Christ’s priesthood which is after the order of + Melchizedek. This is 
shown inter alia by Christ’s permanent and continuing ministry as contrasted with 
the temporary nature of the Levitical priesthood. “The former priests were many in 
number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office; but he 
holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues for ever” (Heb. 7:23 f.). In 
the course of his argument that the true believer shows his faith by his works (Jas. 
2:22), James argues: “But he who looks into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and 
perseveres |paremeinas]|, being no hearer that forgets but a doer that acts, he shall be 
blessed in his doing” (Jas. 1:23 f.). The vb. also occurs in 1 Cor. 16:6 in the physical 
sense of “stay” in the discussion of Paul’s future plans. 

(d) prosmeno, remain, stay with, stay longer, is found in secular Gk., but occurs 
in the LXX only at Jdg. 3: 25A; Tob. 2:2; Wis. 3:9; 3 Macc. 7:17. It is used of the 
crowds who had been with Jesus for three days (Matt. 15:32 par. Mk. 8:2). Similarly, 
it is used in a physical sense in Acts 18:18 and 1 Tim. 1:3. Barnabas exhorted the 
believers at Antioch “to remain faithful to the Lord with steadfast purpose” (Acts 
11:23), while Paul and Barnabas urged their followers from the Jews and proselytes 
in the synagogue at Pisidian Antioch “to continue in the grace of God” (Acts 13:43). 
1 Tim. 5:5 describes the righteous widow: “She who is a real widow, and is left all 
alone, has set her hope on God and continues in supplications and prayers night and 
day” (+ Woman, art. chera). 

(e) perimeno, expect, await, in cl. Gk., occurs in the LX X only twice (Gen. 49:18; 
Wis. 8:12) and only once in the NT, where it signifies waiting “for the promise of the 
Father”, i.e. the Holy > Spirit (Acts 1:4). The disciples were not to depart from 



Jerusalem until they had received it (cf. Lk. 24:49; ~ Pentecost). 

(f) For hypomeno — Patience. 

(g) The noun mone is found in secular Gk. with a variety of meanings including 
abiding, tarrying, persistence, continuance, permanence (cf. Liddell-Scott, 1143; F. 
Hauck, TDNT IV 579). But perhaps the meanings which come closest to the 2 in- 
stances in the NT are a place of halt on a journey, an inn (Pausanias, 10, 31, 7), a 
watch-house in a police district (E. J. Goodspeed, Greek Papyri from the Cairo 
Museum, 1902, 15, 19), a hut for watching in a field (J. Maspero, Papyrus Grecs 
d’époque Byzantine, 1911 ff., 107, 10). However, these examples are late. mone may 
represent some form of the Aram. ‘wn’, meaning a night-stop or resting place on a 
journey (cf. R. E. Brown, The Gospel according to John, Il, Anchor Bible, 1971, 
618). Origen took the NT references to refer to stations on the road to God (De prin. 
2, 11, 6), and this may lie behind the Vulg. mansio and Eng. mansion which meant a 
dwelling place rather than a sumptuous large house. F. Hauck takes Jn. 14:2 to refer 
to the movement from below up to God. “The word seems to be deliberately chosen 
to express the fact that our earthly state is transitory and provisional compared with 
eternal and blessed being with God. On the other hand, 14:23 (the movement is from 
above downwards) depicts salvation after the departure of the Saviour as a perma- 
nent abiding of Christ and God in believers” (TDNT IV 580). However, C. K. 
Barrett rejects the idea that life in heaven involves a progression, and claims that v. 
23 implies a permanent abiding-place-or mode of abiding (The Gospel according to 
St John, 1955, 381; cf. 1 Macc. 7:38). In Jewish belief there were various compart- 
ments or dwelling places in heaven (Eth. Enoch 39:4 ff.; cf. 15:7, 10; 22:9 ff.; 
71:15 f.; Sl. Enoch 61:2; TDNT IV 580 f.). Hence, the RSV: “In my Father’s house 
are many rooms [monai polloi]; if it were not so, would I have told you that I go to 
prepare a place for you?” (Jn. 14:2); “Jesus answered him, ‘If a man loves me, he 
will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make 
our home [monen] with him’ ” (Jn. 14:24). This corresponds to the use of meno in Jn. — 
(see above 4). The former passage stresses the certainty of the coming salvation and 
fellowship with Jesus; the latter the present salvation which comes from the indwell- 

ing of the Father and the Son. (= also House, art. oikos.) C. Brown 
ae ddidAeintocg (adialeiptos), unceasing, constant; ddiadei- 
GO1aAEINTOG ie ie , 
mtwe¢ (adialeiptos), unceasingly, constantly. 

CL & OT Both the adj. and the adv. are comparatively rare in secular Gk. (cf. Liddell- 

Scott, 22; Arndt, 16). In the LXX only the adv. occurs and that exclusively 
in the Maccabean literature (1 Macc. 12:11, 2 Macc. 3:26; 9:4; 13:12; 15:7; 3 
Macc. 6:33). It is also found in Test. Lev. 13:2; Josephus, War 3, 164; 3, 241), whilst 
the adj. occurs in Arist. 84 and Josephus, War 2, 155; 5, 31. 

NT adialeiptos describes in Rom. 9:2 Paul’s unceasing anguish of heart (adialeiptos 

odyne te kardia mou) for the Jews, for whose sake he could wish himself accursed 
and cut off from Christ (v. 3). For though they are descended from - Israel and have 
all the formal promises, they are not truly of Israel. Paul’s yearning for the salvation 
of Israel may be compared with Jesus’ concern for > Jerusalem (Matt. 23:37 ff. par. 



Lk. 13:34 f.). In 2 Tim. 1:3 it is used of Paul’s constant remembrance of Timothy in 
his — prayers. 

The adv. adialeiptos is likewise only found in the Pauline literature. In Rom. 1:9 it 
is used of Paul’s intercession for the Roman Christians and similarly in | Thess. 1:2 
for the Thessalonians. Likewise, Paul thanks God constantly for the response of the 
Thessalonians to the word of God (1 Thess. 2:13) and urges them to pray un- 
ceasingly (1 Thess. 5:17). 

Thus all the contexts in which these words are fund in the NT express un- 
remitting concern for others, particularly in prayer and praise. C. Brown 

(a). R. Bultmann, The Gospel of John, 1971; F. Hauck, meno etc., TDNT IV 574-88: J. E. Russcop, 
Abiding in Christ: Studies in John 15, 1973. 

‘(b). J. Heise, Bleiben. Menein in den johanneischen Schriften, 1967; A. Schlatter, Der Evangelist 
Johannes, 1960. 

Remember, Remembrance 

| muerrjoxouar —_| vyoKopal (mimneskomaii, recall to mind, remember; 
uvela (mneia), remembrance, memory, mention; uvyuy 

(mneme), recollection, memory; “vyuovedw (mnemoneuo), remember, mention; 

Lvnuoovvov (mnemosynon), memory, recollection; avauvnaic (anamnesis), remin- 

der, remembrance; UTOLVNOIC (hypomnesis), recollection; dvayipvnoKo (anamim- 
nesko), remind; \xoumuvrioKw (hypomimnesko), remind. 

CL 1. mimneskomai is derived from the Indo-European root *men, to think. The 

words from this root cover three areas of meaning: (a) me-, mn-, to intend, want, 
require (Gk. memona); (b) to be enraptured, to rave (Gk. mainomai; — Ecstasy); (c) 
mena-, menei-, to be mindful of (Gk. memnemai), might, power, ferocity, liveliness, 
etc. (Gk. menos), to remember, recall, mention (Gk. mimnesko, -omai), counsellor 
(Gk. mnemon); memorial (Gk. mnema). See E. Boisacg, Dictionnaire Etymologique 
de la Langue Grecque — Etudiée dans ses Rapports avec les autres Langues Indo- 
Européennes, 1916, 625. Hence there arises, in Indo-European languages generally, 
the following complex of meanings: (a) to remember (referring to the intellectual 
ability, and its exercise, of linking the past to the present); (b) to consider, weigh up 
(where the present is linked to the future); (c) to be mindful, take into account, men- 
tion (assessing how the present relates both to past and future). This range of mean- 
ings can be seen in English, e.g., in the various uses of the word “mind”: to remind, 
call to mind, give one’s mind to, bear in mind, have a mind to, etc. (see further E. 
Boisacq, op. cit., 627, 638). 

The various simple and compound forms of both vbs. and nouns in Gk. (Liddell- 
Scott give no less than 45!) are used interchangeably. No fundamental difference in 
meaning exists between, on the one hand, compounds such as anamnesis and 
hypomnesis, and, on the other hand, simple forms such as mimnesko and mneme, 
apart, of course, from their being different parts of speech (cf. J. Behm, anamnesis 
etc., TDNT I 348 ‘and O. Michel, mimneskomai, TDNT IV 678 ff.). In view of this 

strong inter-connexion of meaning and the resulting difficulty of distinguishing the 
sense of one word from that of another, many theologians translate all derivatives of 



the stem mne- by memory, to remember, etc., with the unfortunate result that signifi- 
cant shades of meaning are obscured. 

2. In Gk. literature (from Homer to the inscriptions and papyri of the Hellenistic 
period) the following principal meanings are attested: 

(a) to remind oneself or someone else, to remind once again (especially in Plato 
anamimneskesthai and anamnesis), recollection, memory. These meanings apply to 
50% of the relevant words. The commonest prefixes before trans. vbs. are: ana-, epi- 
and hypo-. 

(b) to consider, think of, ponder, reflect (meanings not found in all the writers and 
works investigated) (5%). 

(c) to remember for good or ill, concern oneself with, to want, strive after, desire 
(10%; in Homer almost 50%). 

(d) to be mindful of, take into account, comply with (10%). 

(e) to mention (verbally or in writing), make known, call, name; to warn; deed, 
document (compounds often formed with hypo-) (25%). 

anamnesis has special significance in Plato. From the fact that it is possible to 
probe behind the externals of things, events etc., and to recall their “idea’, he 
deduces a bodiless, free, purely spiritual pre-existence of the — soul, and its survival 
after death (see especially Phdr. 73c; Theaetetus and Meno; cf. G. Vlastos, “Anam- 
nesis in the Meno”, Dialogue, IV, 1965, 143-67; on memory in philosophy see S. 
Shoemaker, “Memory”, in P. Edwards, ed., The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, V. 
1967, 265—76). (— also Resurrection, art. anastasis CL.) 

3. From the time of Homer until the time of Christ and beyond, mneme is one of 
the ideas central to the ancient Gk. and Hellenistic Gk. cults and religio- 
philosophical systems (TDNT IV 679). 

(a) In Homer, Hades is the kingdom of lethe, i.e. oblivion and forgetfulness. Its in- 
habitants are mute and unremembered. The situation may be expressed in the form 
of two equations: forgetting = silence = death; remembering = speech = life 
(Homer, Od. 11, 71, 97 ff., 140 ff., 147 ff.). 

(b) Whereas in Homer remembering and forgetting are mental phenomena, in 
Orphism mneme is personified as a goddess Mnemosyne; but also, under the figures 
of water from a divine spring, or a “passport” for the dead, it is a gift of the goddess, 
i.e. the divine immortality of the human soul (A. Olivieri, Lamellae Aureae Orphicae, 
Kleine Texte 133, 1915). Here then memory is not only a natural power but also the 
process which this power sets in motion. 

(c) In gnosticism the human soul has left its heavenly home and so become 
separated from the unity of the divine (— One, art. heis). Its sentence and fate is to 
forget its divine origin, through contamination by earthly evil. Recollection occurs in 
similar bodily fashion, being the soul’s first step in returning to its heavenly home. 
This recollection is evoked by the arrival of the redeemer (in the form of the “call”, 
the “heaven-sent epistle’’, the ““messenger’’, etc.). The “‘call” is, as it were, the magic 
formula which sets the process in motion (and is so represented in the “Hymn of the 
Pearl” [i.e. the soul] in the Acts of Thomas, text in Henn.-Schn., II, 498-504; 
similarly in the Manichaean literature). (For gnostic texts see W. Foerster, Gnosis: A 
Selection of Gnostic Texts, | Patristic Evidence, 1972, If Mandaic Sources, 1974.) 

(d) This line is carried further in the mystery cults, where the fortunes of the par- 
ticular god being worshipped are recalled in sensual fashion by means of ceremonies 



frequently based on a mixture of mysticism and > magic. (See further G. Wagner, 
Pauline Baptism and the Pagan Mysteries: The Problem of the Pauline Doctrine of 
Baptism in Romans VI. 1-11, in the light of the Religio-Historical “Parallels”’, 
1967.) | 

These remarks should make it clear that the NT use of words from the stem mune- 
cannot be made to originate in these areas (as in many works of the so-called 
“Benedictine School” of Dom Odo Casel and others, and also of those Lutheran 
theologians who try to interpret ‘“‘remembrance”’ as a sacramental ‘“‘representation” 
of the exalted Christ (cf. K. H. Bartels, ““Der theoretische Quellort der ‘Sammlung’ 
und ihre Parole ‘Katholische Reformation’”, EvTh 20, 1960, 364 ff.). 

oT In the LXX words from mne- generally correspond to derivatives of the Heb. vb. 

zakar and are used as in ordinary Gk. Meanings: (a) to remember, etc. (Gen. 
40:23; Wis. 12:2; Gen. 8:1); (b) to consider, etc. (Isa. 47:7; Sir. 41:1 f.); (c) to 
remember for good or ill, used mainly (53 times) of God, rarely (4 times) of men 
(Gen. 30:22; Jer. 40:8 LXX). In particular Deut. “especially develops a theology of 
remembering” (O. Michel, TDNT IV 675; cf. Deut. 5:15; 7:18; 8:2, 18; 9:7; 15:15; 
16:3, 12; 24:18, 20, 22; 32:7); (d) to be mindful of (Deut. 15:15 and passim; Michel, 
ibid.); (e) to mention, etc. (Dan. 5:10 LX X; Est. 2:23; 2 Ki. 18:18 LX X). Then there 
is a specifically biblical use, partially foreshadowed in profane Gk., but undoubtedly 
going back to early oriental and Heb. influences which had a lasting effect upon the 
vocabulary and style of the LXX. Hence the distribution of meanings of mne- in the 
OT differs characteristically from that in profane Gk. and in rabbinic Judaism (the 
latter being exposed to other influences). The following percentages refer to the 
meanings given above, profane Gk. being given in brackets: (a) 24 (50) %; (b) 5 (5) 
%; (c) 18 (10) %; (d) 30 (10) %; (e) 23 (25) %. 

2. Specifically biblical meanings have already been enumerated. They are: 

(a) To mention in prayer to God, call to God’s remembrance (— Prayer, art. 
proseuchomai; for epikaleomai > Call). Ps. 109 (LXX 108):14 may be paraphrased 
thus: “Let the accuser [Job 2:1, — Satan] make mention [LXX anamnestheie; MT 
yizzaker| of the inquity of his fathers before the judgment seat of God.” In the LXX 
of Ps. 62:7; Ezek. 33:13, “to think of” and “to be thought of’ mean to mention or be 
mentioned in intercession before God (cf. also Isa. 48:1; O. Michel, homologeo 
TDNT V 204 f.; Bartels, Gedachtnis, 13 f., and notes 86—97). 

(b) To proclaim, to celebrate, to solemnize (— Feast, art. heorte; > Proclamation, 
art. angello). The existence of the people of Israel, their faith in Yahweh as their 
saviour and redeemer, their obedience to him as their sovereign and as Lord of 
history, their public worship — all these things are grounded in their experience of his 
gracious help in the past. Hence, at their festivals the people of God are publicly 
called upon to remember, and as they do so, the same God who did such great things 
for them in the past, speaks to them once again at the present. In this way, at daily 
worship and at the recurring festivals, the words spoken, sung or heard take up 
redemptive history and turn it into something requiring present commitment (H. W. 
Wolff, “Das Alte Testament und das Problem der existentialen Interpretation”, EvTh 
23, 1963, 10, 14 f.). Hence, the words of this group may be used like angello, i.e. to 
convey the idea of authorized proclamation (as did the Heb. zakar before them; cf. 
W. Schottroff, ‘“Gedenken” im Alten Orient und im Alten Testament, 1964, 23), oc- 



casional examples being found already in Aristotle. A typical passage is Ps. 
70(71):15-17, where v. 16b (“I praise thy righteousness, thine alone’) is literally: “I 
remember |li.e. declare, proclaim] thy righteousness ....” Here the reference is to 
oral “remembrance”, but elsewhere (e.g. Exod. 13:8; Jos. 4:6 f.) God’s mighty acts 
are commemorated by tangible objects (— Miracle, art. semeion), or, as in Exod. 
12:14, by a holy day, the mnemosynon (Heb. zikkaron) being nothing less than the 
celebration of a festival (cf. G. von Rad, Old Testament Theology, I 1962, 242 f.; K. 
H. Bartels: Dies tut zu meinem Gedachtnis. Zur Auslegung von I Kor. 11, 24. 25, 
Dissertation, Mainz, 1959, 14-17 and notes 98—124). 

(c) To believe, obey, become converted, turn about. To remember God in this 
sense means to serve him, to adore him, to obey and follow him, to recognize him as 
Creator and Lord (Num. 15:39 f.; Tob. 1:11 f.; cf. H. Graf Reventlow, “Das Amt 
des mazkir”’, ThZ, Basel, 1959, 161 ff., especially 165). The phrase “to remember 
God” can be a formula summing up a man’s religious standing (Jud. 13:19; Tob. 
2:2). Thus in Ps. 22(21):28f. mnesthesontai (yizkru), used in parallel with 
epistraphesontai (yasubu), probably refers to the act of turning in faith to the Lord 
(cf. Pss. Sol. 4:21; Bartels, Geddchtnis, 18 f. and notes 125-130). 

(d) To confess with praise and adoration, give adoring testimony (— Confession; 
+ Thank, art. aineo; > Blessing, art. eulogia). Whenever words of the mne- group are 
used as synonyms or metonyms of homologeo, to confess (Heb. yadah in hiphil, 
todah), they always at least include the idea of the public confession or acknowledg- 
ment of God. Examples are Pss. 30(29):4; 97(96):12; 45(44):17; 6:5 (cf. Sir. 17:27 
f., Bar. 2:17; Bartels, Geddachtnis, 24) and Tob. 14:7 ff., and especially the titles of 
Pss. 38 (37) and 70 (69). Both titles probably refer to the content of their respective 
psalms (38:19; 70:4) (cf. the titles of Pss. 60, 80 and 145), and so represent liturgical 
rubrics (cf. Schottroff, op. cit., 334 ff.), in which case they are to be translated “for a 
testimony”, i.e. to God’s goodness — such testimony being borne through the public 
recital of the psalm (Bartels, Geddchtnis, 23-26 and notes 188—208). This usage has 
been transferred from the Heb. zakar to the Gk. of the LXX; no analogy exists in 
profane Gk. 

3. In rabbinic Judaism, however, the specially biblical usage recedes. Remem- 
brance for good or ill comes to be heavily rationalized, e.g. the Midrash on Gen. 
30:22, where God’s remembrance is interpreted as his recollection of Rachel’s good 
works: “What did he remember? Her silence toward her sister.... Of what did he 
think? Of the fact that she had brought the concubine into her home” (Ber. Rabbah 
355). On the other hand, the biblical meaning to help, to be gracious, lived on in the 
liturgy (cf. the so-called zikronét in the liturgy for the new year’s day; P. Fiebig, 
Rosch-ha-schana, 1914). The meaning to mention occurs frequently in the formula 
“his memory was kept in honour” (Yoma 3:9b and passim). The use of ‘azkarah in 
the place of the divine name is significant (O. Michel, TDNT IV 682 n.; R. Meyer, 
TDNT III 982 f.; Schottroff, op. cit., 333 and n. 1). Here remembrance stands for 
Sem, > name (as it does occasionally in the OT: Exod. 20:24 LXX, where 
onomazein stands for the Heb. zakar). In the Qumran texts the idea persists of God 
“remembering” for good and is more prominent than in the rabbinic literature. Thus, 
it is stated that God thought of the old covenant and gave the new covenant for his 
elect, while in the eschatological war he will remember the sons of light and help 
them against the sons of darkness. For instances of zakar see 1QS 6:27: 1QM 10:7: 



17:2; 1QH 4:34 f.; 1Q 34 2:5; 32, 5; 6QD 3:5; CD 1:4; 6:2; 15:2. 
K. H. Bartels — 

4. The theological interpretation of memory and remembering has been the sub- 
ject of investigation in OT scholarship. In 1926 J. Pedersen put forward a theory of 
the Hebrew psychology of memory which claimed that the Hebrew viewed reality 
with the purpose of discovering a totality U[srael: Its Life and Culture, I-II, 99 ff.). 
Man is a nepes (soul). Abstract thought is something alien to the primitive Hebrew 
approach to life. “When the soul remembers something, it does not mean that it has 
an objective memory image of some thing or event, but that this image is called forth 
in the soul and assists in determining its direction, its action. When man remembers 
God, he lets his being and his actions be determined by him.... The peculiarity 
about the Israelite is that he cannot at all imagine memory, unless at the same time 
an effect on the totality and its direction of the will is taken for granted” (op. cit., 106 
f.). The general attack on Pedersen’s method by James Barr in The Semantics of 
Biblical Language, 1961, has been followed up by a detailed critique by B. S. Childs 
in Memory and Tradition in Israel, SBT 37, 1962. 

Childs gives what is perhaps the most detailed study in English of zakar, and 
claims that Pedersen has imposed his own preconceived ideas on the material he has 
examined. He rejects the method of listing the occurrences of the root in an at- 
tempted chronological order, as this takes too much account of the accidental ap- 
pearances it makes in writing, and too little of its function within the particular con- 
texts of life and worship. Employing the techniques of form-criticism, Childs studies 
the use of the vb. in the setting of the cult, the law court, prophecy, narrative etc. He 
agrees with Pedersen that features of OT thought exhibit similarities with that of 
other contemporary, primitive peoples. But “the biblical evidence simply does not 
confirm his theory that event is conceived of merely as a manifestation of the soul 
and effected independently of external factors” (op. cit., 29). The Hebrews were cer- 
tainly aware that thoughts did not always lead to a corresponding action, as in the 
complaint to Moses, “O that we had meat to eat. We remember the fish we ate in 
Egypt for nothing ... and there is nothing at all but this manna to look at” (Num. 
11:5; cf. Est. 4:13 for a similar example of where the thought is quite different from 
the reality). “But one can go a step beyond this. Israel developed a sense of history 
because of its understanding of Yahweh’s relation to the world which broke the 
primitive pattern. God controls the external world through the dimension of the 
historical” (op. cit., 29 f.; cf. Gen. 50:20; Isa. 10:7 ff.). 

(a) When the vb. is used of God, Childs notes two distinct formulae: ‘““On the one 
hand, the imperative form has its context within the complaint psalm. An expansion 
of the form away from its cultic origin was traced in the complaints of Jeremiah and 
Job. The great break came with the prophetic adaptation for purposes of judgment 
and promise. On the other hand, the use of the finite form of the verb arose within the 
hymn. The Priestly school accommodated the form to express a theological inter- 
pretation of covenantal history” (op. cit., 44). 

(i) The complaint Psalm may be both individual (Pss. 25[24]: 6 f.; 119[118]:49) or 
communal (Pss. 74[73]:2, 18, 22; 79[78]:8; 106[105]:4: 137[1361:7; cf. Isa. 64:8: 
Jer. 14:21; Lam. 5:1; Neh. 1:8). It may be negative or positive: ““Do not remember 
against us the sins of our forefathers” (Ps. 79[78]|:8); “Remember how the enemy 


scoff’ (Ps. 74[73]:18; cf. v. 22). Frequent appeals are made to the — covenant 
relationship (Jer. 14:21; Ps. 25[24]:6; cf. Pss. 119[118]:49; 74|73]:2). Outside the 
Psalms among the pre-exilic non-cultic material are the prayers of Hannah (1 Sam. 
1:11), Samson (Jdg. 16:28) and Hezekiah (2 Ki. 20:3 par. Isa. 38:3). Other passages 
containing intercessory prayers are Exod. 32:13; Deut. 9:27; 2 Chr. 6:42; Pss. 
20(19):4; 89(88):48, 51; 132(131):1. 

(ii) In the pleas of Jeremiah for Yahweh to remember him, access to the divine 
presence through the cult has been replaced by a direct confrontation with Yahweh. 
His plea is grounded in the fact that he is the bearer of the prophetic word (Jer. 
18:20; 20:8 ff.) which has brought about his isolation and rejection (Jer. 15:15—18). 
Job’s complaints are “characterized by a poetic freedom which allows him wide 
latitude” (op. cit., 38; cf. Job 7:7—10). In Neh. “‘the imperative appears frequently in 
a stereotyped prose phrase (Neh. 5:19; 6:14; 13:14, 22, 29, 31). For examples of the 
prophetic oracle, adapting the complaint psalm, see Hos. 6:1—7:2; 8:8, 11 ff.; 9:9; 
Jer. 14:2—12; 31:15—20 (cf. also Isa. 43:25; Jer. 2:2; 31:34 which are not related to 
the complaint Psalm). 

(iit) A different genre is the hymn, where instead of the imperative urging Yahweh 
to remember, the writer praises Yahweh in the indicative for remembering his cove- 
nant faithfulness and promises (Pss. 98[97]:3; 105[104]:8, 42; 106/1051:45; 
111[110]:5; 136[135]:23; 1 Chr. 16:15). Yahweh’s memory is not confined to past 
events; it is active in the present and will continue into the future (Pss. 105|104|:8; 
103[102]:7, 14; 111[110]:5). 

(iv) Finally, in passages which he ascribes to the Priestly writer Childs sees certain 
affinities with the hymn, but points out that God’s remembering is uncultic in charac- 
ter and figures in a historical work in prose passages concerned with the history of 
redemption. ““The use of the verb zkr reflects the Priestly writer’s concern to present 
history as a witness to the unfolding of the purpose of the covenant God who Is ac- 
tive in Israel’s midst. This history is merely a working out of the one eternal act of 
divine grace” (op. cit., 43; cf. Gen. 8:1; 9:15 f.; 19:29; Exod. 2:24; 6:5; Lev. 26:42, 
45; cf. also Ezek. 16:60). God’s remembrance of his covenant includes a renewed 
promise of the land (Exod. 6:8; cf. Lev. 26:42, 45). | 

(b) But not only does Yahweh remember; Israel also remembers. Here Childs 
notes several distinctive types of usage. 

(i) In the case of Deuteronomic usage “the writer has as his chief problem the 
relating of the new generation of Israel to the tradition of Moses. No longer has 
Israel direct access to the redemptive events of the past. Now memory takes on cen- 
tral theological significance. Present Israel has not been cut off from redemptive 
history, but she encounters the same covenant God through a living tradition. 
Memory provides the link between past and present” (op. cit., 55; cf. Deut. 7:18; 
9:7; 24:9; 25:17). “The divine commands as event meet each successive generation 
through her tradition calling forth a decision, and in obedience Israel shares in the 
same redemption as her forefathers” (op. cit., 56; cf. Deut. 5:15; 15:15; 16:12; 
24:18, 22). Here the > sabbath plays an important part, and the emphasis is rather 
different from Exod. 20:8. ““Memory does not serve to arouse a psychological reac- 
tion of sympathy for slaves. Rather, quite the reverse is true. Israel observes the Sab- 
bath in order to remember her slavery and deliverance” (op. cit., 53). In so doing 



there is an actualization of redemptive history. “Israel in every generation remembers 
and so shares in the same redemptive time” (op. cit., 54). 

(ii) In Mic. 6:5 “the prophet appeals to Israel’s memory as a means of actualizing 
Yahweh’s original purpose for his people” (op. cit., 57). The appeal to memory is 
characteristic of a defendant’s speech in a law court. The present rupture with 
Yahweh stems from Israel’s failure to understand the saving acts. 

(iii) In Isa. 43:18, 44:21 and 46:9 there is “both the continuity and the discon- 
tinuity of history. There is a continuity between the past and the future because of the 
one purpose of God. There is a discontinuity because of Israel’s failure. Israel’s past 
response evokes the need of a radical new quality within history. In both instances 
Israel’s memory is an active response in faith which links her to the RedeMptIve ac- 
tion of God’s entrance into history” (op. cit., 59). 

(iv) Ezekiel focuses attention on the problem of Israel remembering his sins (Ezek. 
6:9; 16:22, 61; 20:43; 23:19, 27; 36:31). Remembering is also connected with the 
formula “they [or you] shall know that I am Yahweh” (Ezek. 6:10; 16:62; 20:44; 

(v) The Psalms contain the largest number of instances of zakar, the overwhelm- 
ing majority of which occur in the individual complaint Pss. (e.g. 42|41]:5; 77|761:4; 
119[118]:52, 55; 143[142]:5). Allied to this is the communal complaint (Ps. 
137[136]:1, 6) and > Jonah’s psalm (Jon. 2:8). “The fact that the psalmist can 
remember a situation different from his present plight evokes his bitter complaint and 
fervent plea for aid” (op. cit., 60). Ps. 42 pictures the individual cut off from the 
temple, and thus apparently from the divinely appointed means of access to Yahweh, 
and thirsting for his presence. In Ps. 77 the Psalmist grieves that Yahweh has 
changed his attitude towards him. “Memory as a psychological process is the same 
in the two parts of the psalm. The difference is that in vv. 2—11 the psalmist’s remem- 
bering results in bitter frustration, whereas in vv. 12 ff. he encounters God through 
his memory .... The act of memory forms a bridge which links the psalmist with the 
God of the forefathers, not because of a Herculean act of self-projection, but because 
the events of the tradition possess a power which continues to meet Israel in her 
struggle” (op. cit., 63). In the case of Ps. 63, Childs thinks that an experience which 
was originally cultic in nature is actualized through a process which is no longer 
cultic, whereas Ps. 137 expresses bitter sorrow for > Jerusalem’s destruction. 

(c) The LXX uses the noun mnemosynon chiefly to translate various forms from 
the root zkr. In particular, the MT uses two Heb. nouns zikkarén and zeker. 

(i) zikkar6én, memorial sign, is derived from the qal stem of zkr (J. Barth, Die 
Nominalbildung in den semitischen Sprachen, 1894, 324). It occurs 23 times (in- 
cluding once in an Aram. cognate). It is found 14 times in the Pentateuch, 12 of 
which Childs locates in the Priestly source (op. cit., 66). Childs sees two broad 
categories of meaning. In the passive sense it means a memorandum, a thing worthy 
to be remembered: memorable deeds (Est. 6:1), sayings (Job 13:12), remembrance 
(Eccl. 1:11; 2:16), a record (Ezr. 6:2), a memorial written in a book which will serve 
to bring to mind the defeat of the Amalekites (Exod. 17:14), a book of memorial(s) 
(Mal. 3:16; Est. 6:1). In the active sense it means a memorial which calls something 
else to remembrance. In 9 cases it is a cultic object: the altar covering (Num. 16:40; 
17:5), booty (Num. 31:54), onyx stones (Exod. 28:12, twice), atonement money 
(Exod. 30:16), breastpiece (Exod. 28:29), cereal offering (Num. 5:15, 18). It is twice 



used of the cultic activity of blowing trumpets (Num., 10:10; Lev. 23:24), and once of 
a cultic festival, the passover (Exod. 12:14). “According to the usual Priestly idiom 
the zikkaron is a ‘memorial for the children of Israel before Yahweh’. One has only 
to recall the role of the cult for the Priestly writer to recognize the full significance of 
the phrase. God has established a covenantal relationship with Israel which expresses 
itself in his eternal ordinances (huqgat ‘dlam, Num. 10:8). Signs and memorials 
serve within this dispensation of grace both to guarantee and maintain for each 
generation this eternal relationship. The cultic acts of Israel continually remind God 
of this eternal covenantal order. The cultic objects and rites act to guarantee that the 
covenant is not forgotten” (B. S. Childs, op. cit., 67). Other instances are the crown 
in the temple (Zech. 6:14), its pejorative use of an idolatrous cult symbol (Isa. 57:8), 
the unleavened bread (Exod. 13:9) and the stones set up in the Jordan to be “to the 
people of Israel a memorial for ever” (Jos. 4:7). 

(ii) The Heb. zeker, remembrance, memorial, occurs 23 times. It is used as a 
parallel for Sem, name, in 5 cases (Exod. 3:15; Isa. 26:8; Ps. 135[134]:13; Job 18:17; 
Prov. 10:7), and the contexts of 4 other passages suggest a similar meaning (Hos. 
12:6, Pss. 30[29]:5; 97[96]:12; 102[101]:13). Because the — name expresses a 
person’s essence in Heb. thought, the destroying of one’s name is the same as to an- 
nihilate someone (Jer. 11:19; Job 18:17). Thus a number of passages deal with the 
destruction of the enemy, cutting off all mention of the name (Exod. 17:14; Deut. 
15:19; 32:26; Isa. 26:14; Pss. 9:7; 34[33]:17; 109[108]:15; 112[111]:6; Eccl. 9:5; 
Est. 9:28). In Ps. 6:6 the psalmist complains that “in death there is no remembrance 
of thee; in Sheol who can give thee praise?” Childs relates Est. 9:28 to the problem of 
actualizing the past and thus translates the verse: “that the days of Purim should not 
fall into disuse among the Jews nor should the recounting of them cease among the 
descendants” (op. cit., 72). He also suggests that zeker in Ps. 111(110):4 refers 
primarily to the act of proclaiming, which in turn leads to the acts being remembered. 
Childs concludes that zeker “is not used primarily as a means of renewing the 
redemptive traditions of Israel, and that it should be carefully distinguished from 
zikkar6on” (op. cit., 73). 

(d) Whether one assigns certain passages to the Priestly writer will depend on the 
view one takes of the authorship and composition of the Pentateuch. This in turn will 
have a bearing on how the appeal to memory is seen as developing in the worship 
and history of Israel. Childs sees memory as deeply related to Israel’s cult “as a 
means of actualizing the past. In times of crisis, when the role of the cult was 
threatened, Israel’s memory assumed a new significance in renewing her tradition” 
(op. cit., 80). S. Mowinckel saw this process of actualization against the wider 
background of the mythopoeic thought of the ancient Near East (cf. The Psalms in 
Israel’s Worship, I—II, 1962). The cult serves to renew the structure of the world by 
re-enacting the sacred drama of the myth. The content of the myth is renewed and 
the participants experience its elemental power. Childs is among those who object to 
this on the grounds that it fails to do justice to the fact that in Israel the myth was 
replaced by historical events (op. cit., 82; cf. G. von Rad, Old Testament Theology, 
II, 1965, 99-125). Moreover, these events could not be repeated; they were fixed in 
time. A view which is diametrically opposed to Mowinckel’s sees the process of ac- 
tualization as the recital in the cult of the great historical events of the past which es- 
tablished Israel’s existence. “Actualization occurs when the worshipper experiences 



an identification with the original events. He bridges the gap of historical time and 
participates in the original history” (B. S. Childs, op. cit., 82; cf. M. Noth, “The ‘Re- 
presentation’ of the O.T. in Proclamation”, in C. Westermann, ed., Essays on Old 
Testament Interpretation, 1963, 76—88; H.-J. Kraus, Worship in Israel, 1962). 

Childs himself wishes to combine the two positions, while laying greater empha- 
sis on the latter, though he believes that remembering in the OT is more than a men- 
tal event. The historical redemptive event “causes a continued reverberation beyond 
its original entry” (op. cit., 83). On the one hand, it was unique in time and space. But 
on the other hand, redemptive history continues. “It means more than that the in- 
fluence of a past event continued to be felt in successive generations, which obvious 
fact no one could possibly deny. Rather, there was an immediate encounter, an ac- 
tual participation in the great acts of redemption .... Actualization is the process by 
which a past event is contemporized for a generation removed in time and space 
from the original event. When later Israel responded to the continuing imperative of 
her tradition through her memory, that moment in historical time likewise became an 
Exodus experience. Not in the sense that later Israel again crossed the Red Sea. This 
was an irreversible, once-for-all event. Rather, Israel entered the same redemptive 
reality of the Exodus generation’ (op. cit., 84 f.). 

There is much in Childs’ work which commands assent. Nevertheless, it may be 
questioned whether the concept of actualization may not be taken too far. For the 
data which Childs examines do not warrant the conclusion that the past event is 
somehow made present. Rather, it is the living God, Yahweh, who is ever present. 
Past history serves to give the present its shape. And reflection on the past serves to 
remind the believing Israelite that Yahweh can be counted upon to remain true. In 
this respect, the appeal to memory has a double function: it serves as a basis of ap- 
peal to Yahweh in prayer; and as such it also serves to encourage the believing 
Israelite that, however black his present predicament may be, he can still count on 
Yahweh. (For further discussion on the role of history in biblical thought see C. 
Brown, ed., History, Criticism and Faith, 1977, especially 13-75, 147—224.) 

5. In the LXX mnemosynon also translates the Heb. ‘azkarah, the memorial meal 
offering which was burnt with oil and frankincense as a pleasing odour to Yahweh 
(Lev. 2:2, 9, 16; 6:8[15]; Num. 5:26; — Sacrifice). In the case of the very poor it 
could serve as a sin offering (Lev. 5:12). All the passages where ‘azkardh occurs are 
widely attributed to P. On the use of anamnesis to translate the term in Lev. 24:7 see 
below, 9. On the offering see R. de Vaux, Studies in Old Testament Sacrifice, 1964, 

6. The LXX uses mneia, remembrance, for phrases with the vb. zakar (Deut. 
7:18; Job 14:13; Isa. 26:13; Jer. 31[28]:20; Ezek. 21:37[32]: 25:10; Zech. 13:2), for 
zeker (Ps. 111[110]:4; Isa. 28:6), and without equivalent in Isa. 32:10; Bar. 4:27: 
5:5; Wis. 5:14. | 

7. The LXX uses mneme for zeker (Pss. 30[29]:4; 97[96]:12; 145[144]:7; Prov. 
10:7; Eccl. 9:5), for zikrén, memorial (Eccl. 1:11; 2:16) and without Heb. equivalent 
(Prov. 1:12; Wis. 4:1, 19; 8:13; 10:8; 11:12; 2 Macc. 2:25; 7:20). 

8. Two cognate nouns are found in the LXX in the sense of memorial, grave: 
mnema for geber (Exod. 14:11; Num. 11:34 f.; 19:16, 18; 33:16 f.; Deut. 9:22; 
2 Chr. 16:14; 34:4, 28; Job 10:19; Isa. 65:4; Jer. 26[33|:23; Ezek. 32:26; 37:12) 
and q°burdh (Ezek. 32:23 f.); and mnemeion for the same pair of words, geber (Gen. 


23:6, 9; 49:30; 50:5, 13; Neh. 2:3, 5; Isa. 22:16; Jer. 26[33]:23; Ezek. 39:11) and 
q’ burah (Gen. 35:20). (> further Bury, Grave, Tomb.) 

9. The noun anamnesis, remembrance, which features in the words of institution 
in the > Lord’s Supper is comparatively rare. In Lev. 24:7 it stands for ’azkardh, 
which was a memorial offering (see above, 5): “And you shall put pure frankincense 
with each row; that it may go with the bread as a memorial portion [MT /¢azkardh; 
LXX eis anamnesin] to be offered by fire to the LORD.’ This particular ‘azkardh was 
evidently intended to be a perpetual reminder of the — covenant, to be offered every 
— sabbath: “Every sabbath day Aaron shall set it in order before the LorD con- 
tinually on behalf of the people of Israel as a covenant for ever. And it shall be for 
Aaron and his sons, and they shall eat it in a holy place, since it is for htm a most 
holy portion out of the offerings by fire to the Lorp, a perpetual due” (Lev. 24:8 f.). 
There would seem to be no propitiatory element in this offering. On the other hand, 
the memorial aspect of it seems to have had a double reference, i.e. a God-ward and 
a man-ward reference. Just as Yahweh may be said to remember and was called 
upon to remember, the offering may have been regarded as an appeal to Yahweh’s 
covenant faithfulness. At the same time it was a reminder to Israel of Yahweh’s 
covenant faithfulness. The fact that only the > priests might eat it indicates not only 
the holy character of the offering but their representative rdle on behalf of the people. 

Num. 10:10 has also a cultic context but the Heb. noun is zikkarén (see above, 4 
(c) (i) ): “On the day of your gladness also, and at your appointed feasts, and at the 
beginning of your months, you shall blow the trumpets over your burnt offerings and 
over the sacrifices of your peace offerings; they will serve you for remembrance 
before your God [MT w°hayti lakem I:zikkaron lip*né ruwn dohékem; LXX kai estai 
hymin anamnesis enanti tou theou hymon|: I am the LorD your God.” The ex- 
pression “before the LORD” coupled with the context of the previous verse suggests 
that the remembering here too has a God-ward reference which indeed is primary, 
although the man-ward reference is implicit: “And when you go to war in your land 
against the adversary who oppresses you, then you shall sound an alarm with the 
trumpets, that you may be remembered before the LORD your God [MT w ‘nizkartem 
lip¢né YHwWH "lohékem; LXX kai anamnesthesesthe enanti kyriou|, and you shall be 
saved from your enemies” (Num. 10:9; > Trumpet). _ 

anamnesis occurs in the titles of Ps. 38 (LXX 37; “A Psalm of David, for the 
memorial offering” RSV) and Ps. 70 (LXX 69; “To the choirmaster. A Psalm of 
David, for the memorial offering”). On the titles of the Pss. see A. A. Anderson, The 
Book of Psalms, New Century Bible, 1, 1972, 43-51. Their origin and value with 
regard to the interpretation of the Pss. are very uncertain. The contents of neither Ps. 
make explicit reference to the cult, and S. Mowinckel thinks that the purpose was to 
remind Yahweh of the distress of the worshippers (The Psalms in Israel’s Worship, 
1962, II, 212). The MT uses the hiphil of the vb. zakar. 

In the Apocrypha anamnesis occurs only in Wis. 16:6 with a clear man-ward 
reference: “But for admonition they were troubled for a short space, having a token 
of salvation, to put them in remembrance of the commandment of thy law leis 
anamnesin entoles nomou sou\.” 

The vb. anamimnesko, remember, is a little more frequent than the noun, and 
always stands for zakar where there is a Heb. equivalent (Gen. 8:1: 41:9; Exod. 
23:13; Num. 5:15; 10:9; 2 Sam. 18:18; 20:24; 1 Ki. 4:3; 17:18; 2 Ki. 18:18, 37: 



Neh. 9:17; Job 24:20; Ps. 109[108]:14; Jer. 4:16; Ezek. 21:28 f. |24 f.]: 23:19: 
29:16; 33: 13, 16). There is no corresponding Heb. in 1 Ki. 3:1; Sir. 3:15: 4 Macc. 
16:18. C. Brown 

NT 1. Altogether 72% of all the passages in the NT reflect normal Gk. usage. They 
bear the following meanings: 

(a) To remember, call to mind (20% of NT instances; 50% i in profane Gk.). Thus, 
“Peter remembered [emnesthe]| the saying of Jesus, ‘Before the cock crows, you will 
' deny me three times.’ And he went out and wept bitterly” (Matt. 26:75; here 
mimneskomai is used as a reflexive vb., to remind oneself, i.e. to remember, with the 
object in the gen.). In the par. passages the other synoptic evangelists use different 
cognates: “Peter remembered [anemnesthe|’’ (Mk. 14:72; the passive of anamim- 
nesko, remind); “Peter remembered |[hypemnesthe]” (Lk. 22:61; the passive of 
hypomimnesko, remind). Similarly, Matt. 16:9: “Do you not yet perceive? Do you 
not remember |mnemoneuete| the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many 
baskets you gathered?” (cf. par. Mk. 8:18). 2 Pet. 1:15 uses a verbal phrase: “And I 
will see to it that after my departure you may be able at any time to recall these 
things [ten touton mnemen poieisthai|.” In 2 Tim. 1:6 the vb. anamimnesko means to 
remind, and governs the acc. of the person and the infinitive: “Hence I remind you to 
rekindle the gift of God that is within you through the laying on of my hands.” This 
basic secular sense is used in all these passages to draw theological lessons. Peter’s 
memory of Jesus’ warning about his denial underlines the folly of self-confidence, the 
loving way in which Jesus handled Peter, and the part of remorse in repentance and 
restoration. In the case of Matt. 16:9 par. Mk. 8:18, memory of Jesus’ past actions 
should have sustained the disciples’ faith in present difficulties. And in the other two 
passages cited, remembering plays an important part in sustaining the life of faith. 

(b) To consider (6.5% of the NT instances; 5% in profane Gk.). “Remember 
[mnemoneuete| Lot’s wife” (Lk. 17:32; cf. Gen. 19:26; Wis. 10:6 ff.; 2 Pet. 2:7 f.; SB 
III 769 ff.). The object is in the gen. The example of Lot’s wife in refusing to give her- 
self totally to escaping the > judgment on Sodom and Gomorrah served as a warn- 
ing to be considered in both Jewish and Christian teaching. In Heb. 10:32 the object 
is in the acc.: “But recall [anamneskesthe] the former days when, after you were 
enlightened, you endured a hard struggle with sufferings.” The allusion is uncertain, 
but Heb. 12:4 suggests a persecution which had stopped short at martyrdom. This 
could have been the expulsion of Jews from Rome in A.D. 49, when rioting among 
the Jewish colony may have been caused by the introduction of Christianity (cf. 
Suetonius, Claudius 24, 4; Acts 18:2; F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews, NLC, 
1964, 266-70; and “Christianity under Claudius”, BJ/RL 44, 1961-62, 309 ff.). In 
Lk. 16:25 mnestheti is followed by a dependent clause: “But Abraham said, ‘Son, 
remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Lazarus in like 
manner evil things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish” (on the 
parable see especially J. D. M. Derrett, “Dives and Lazarus and the Preceding 
Sayings”, in Law in the New Testament, 1970, 78-99). Here again, remembering in 
the form of considering, plays — or should play — an important part in the conduct of 

(c) To remember for good, to remember in a way which will benefit the person 
concerned in some way or other (14.5% of the NT instances; 10% in profane Gk.). 



Here the passages are either OT quotations or have strong OT overtones. Mary's 
psalm The Magnificat recalls: ““He has helped his servant Israel, in remembrance of 
his mercy |mnesthenai eleous|’’ (Lk. 1:54; cf. Ps. Sol. 10:4; > Mercy). Zechariah’s 
psalm blesses God for fulfilling his promises “to perform the mercy promised to our 
fathers, and to remember [mnesthenai| his holy covenant” (Lk. 1:72; cf. Exod. 2:24; 
6:5; Pss. 105[104]:8; 106[105]:7. 45). Heb. 8:12 also operates within the theology of 
the > covenant, taking up the promise of Jer. 31:34: “For I will be-merciful toward 
their iniquities, and I will remember | mnestho] their sins no more.” The same passage 
is again cited in Heb. 10:17. The plea of the penitent thief means in effect, “Save 
me!”: “Jesus, remember me |mnestheti mou) when you come in your kingly power” 
(Lk. 23:42; — Paradise). Gal. 2:10 refers to the eagerness of James, Peter and John, 
in extending the right hand of fellowship to Paul and Barnabas in their mission to the 
Gentiles, to “‘have us remember the poor [ton ptochon hina mnemoneuomen|, which 
very thing I was eager to do” (Gal. 2:10). On this aspect of the Christian mission > 
Poor, art. ptochos. Rev. 18:5 expresses the converse aspect of this kind of remember- 
ing in the oracles against — Babylon: “for her sins are heaped high as heaven, and 
God has remembered [emnemoneusen] her inquities.” 

(d) To be mindful of (26% of the NT instances; 10% in profane Gk.). In most of 
these cases the translation “‘to remember” would be too weak. Rather, the remember- 
ing is seen as a positive force which affects one’s behaviour (cf. 1 Esd. 4:22 LXX). 
Thus Heb. 11:15 might be paraphrased: “If their hearts had still been [mnemoneu- 
ousin| in that land from which they had gone out, they would have had opportunity 
to return.” The allusion is to the departure of > Abraham from Ur and his sojourn- 
ing in the land with his dependants prior to the settlement of Israel in the promised 
land (Gen. 11:31 ff.). 2 Pet. was written expressly “that you should remember 
[mnesthenai\ the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord 
and Saviour through the apostles” (2 Pet. 3:2). O. Michel claims that this “is not 
meant in a historicizing or intellectual sense .... To remind the congregation 1s to 
bear witness to the Gospel; to remind oneself is to place oneself under the Word of 
Jesus. Here, too, the whole man is embraced” (TDNT IV 678). Similarly Timothy is 
exhorted: “Remind them of this [tauta hypomimneske]|, and charge them before the 
Lord to avoid disputing about words, which does no good, but only ruins the 
hearers” (2 Tim. 2:14). In 1 Cor. 11:2 hoti memnesthe means “that you have regard 
for me to such an extent that [epexegetical kai] you maintain the tradition even as I 
delivered it to you.” In 2 Tim. 1:5 Aypomnesin labon conveys the force of “‘having 
become convinced”. According to 1 Cor. 4:17, Timothy has been sent to the 
Corinthians “to remind [hos anamnesei| you of my ways in Christ, as I teach them 
everywhere in every church.” For similar meanings which go beyond the merely in- 
tellectual exercise of bringing the past to mind, see 2 Pet. 1:12 f.; Jude 5, 17; 2 Pet. 
3:1; Acts 11:16; Heb. 13:3. 

(e) To mention (5% of the NT instances; 25% in profane Gk.). This may be the 
sense in 2 Cor. 7:15, although the context implies that what Titus is doing here is not 
something casual: “And his heart goes out all the more to you, as he remembers 
lanamimneskomenou| the obedience of you all, and the fear and trembling with 
which you received him.” hypomneso in 3 Jn. 10 means “I will bring up”, 1.e. the 
elder will raise the question of the actions of Diotrephes before the church council. In 
the vision of Rev. 16:19 great > Babylon “was remembered before God [emnesthe 



enopion tou theou|, i.e. arraigned before God, her condemnation being expressed by 
the infinitive clause “to make her drain the cup of the fury of his wrath” (cf. Rev. 
18:5 see above (c); Ps. 109[108]:14). 

2. The specifically biblical usage occurs only in 28% of the NT passages. 

(a) To mention in prayer, to remember in —> prayer. The two phrases mneian 
poioumenoi “mentioning” and mnemoneuontes “remembering” in 1 Thess. 1:2 f. 
both mean to intercede. In Acts 10:4 Cornelius the centurion is told by an angel of 
God, “Your prayers and your alms have ascended as a memorial before God 
[anebesan eis mnemosynon emprosthen tou theou|.” E. Haenchen thinks that the 
meaning here is simply that the prayers and alms are remembered before God, and 
that the connexion with the burnt part of the meal offering is too remote to see any 
association (The Acts of the Apostles, 1971, 347; cf. OT 5 above). On the other hand, 
F. F. Bruce sees in the use of mnemosynon a “sacrificial efficacy” in Cornelius’s con- 
duct (The Acts of the Apostles, 19527, 216; cf. Ps. 111[110]:2; Phil. 4:18; Heb. 13:15 
f.; Tob. 12:12). In Acts 10:31 emnesthesan ¢“have been remembered”’) is substituted 
in the case of the alms, and the prayer is simply said to have been heard. The passage 
may be compared with the prayer of the righteous for vengeance in Eth. Enoch 
47:1 f. 3 

(b) To proclaim. “Therefore I intend always to remind [hypomimneskein| you of 
these things, though you know them and are established in the truth that you have 
[en te parouse aletheia). 1 think it right, as long as I am in this body, to arouse you 
by way of reminder [en hypomnesei]’’ (2 Pet. 1:12 f.). Here the reminding is un- 
derstood in terms of presenting again the known truth of the gospel. According to Jn. 
14:26, such reminding is the work of the Holy Spirit as the paraclete: “But the Coun- 
selor [parakletos|, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will 
teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance [kai hypomnesei hymas| all that 
I have said to you” (> Advocate). As Christ’s hearers bring to mind the message 
which they have heard from him and which therefore in some measure remains 
within them, the Holy Spirit enables them to proclaim the Lordship of Christ in ways 
which are relevant to each succeeding generation. There are overtones of this sense 
of proclamation in 1 Cor. 4:17 (see above (d) ). There is a sense in which Paul him- 
self is being proclaimed to the Corinthians, for the apostle is part and parcel of the 
eschatological event (cf. R. Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, I, 1952, 
303 ff.). | 

Similarly, the woman who anointed Jesus becomes part of the NT proclamation: 
‘And truly, I say to you, wherever the gospel is preached in the whole world, what 
she has done will be told in memory of her [eis mnemosynon autes|” (Mk. 14:9; cf. 
Matt. 26:13). J. Jeremias has argued that the verse refers not to the church’s mission 
in the world but to the last judgment, where the woman will be remembered by God 
(““Mc. 14, 9”, ZNW 44, 1952-53, 103-7). J. H. Greenlee takes it to mean that 
the action served as her memorial to Jesus in view of his impending death (“eis 
mnemosynon autes, ‘For her memorial’, Mt. xxvi. 13; Mk. xiv. 9”, ExpT 71, 
1959-60, 245). For further discussion see A. L. Moore, The Parousia in the New 
Testament, Supplements to NovT 13, 1966; and W. L. Lane, The Gospel of Mark, 
NLC 1974, 494 f. Lane draws attention to Ps. 41(40):2, where the one who protects 
the poor is assured of the blessing of Yahweh. The disciples might at first sight ap- 
pear to be well qualified for this benediction in view of their suggestion about selling 



the ointment and using the proceeds for the poor. “It is the woman, however, who 
receives Jesus’ praise for her response to the poor man above all others who is about 
to suffer for the people of God” (Lane, op. cit., 494). Jesus’ pronouncement in v. 8, 
that “She has done what she could; she has anointed my body beforehand for 
burying”’, indicates that Jesus anticipated that he would suffer a criminal’s death, for 
only in such circumstances would there be no anointing of the body (D. Daube, “The 
Anointing at Bethany and Jesus’ Burial”, Anglican Theological Review 32, 1950, 
187 f.). V. 9 looks beyond the crucifixion to the post-resurrection church situation of 
the > proclamation of the — gospel. 

Exhortation in the form of anamnesis or hypomnesis is a marked feature of the 
Christian message: “Hence I remind [anamimnesko] you to rekindle the gift of God 
that is within you through the laying on of my hands” (2 Tim. 1:6; > Gift; > Hand, 
art. epitithemi); “Remind [hypomimneske| them to be submissive to rulers and 
authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for any honest work” (Tit. 3:1). 

(c) To believe. ““Remember Jesus Christ [7nemoneue Iesoun Christon\, risen from 
the dead, descended from David, as preached in my gospel” (2 Tim. 2:8). What is to 
be remembered is a short credal statement ( — Confess; > Proclamation). It may be 
compared with the somewhat longer form in Rom 1:3f., where the order is 
chronological. Stress is laid on the fact that these truths are integral to the apostolic 
gospel. See further J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds, 1972°, 1-29; V. H. 
Neufeld, The Earliest Christian Confessions, New Testament Tools and Studies 5, 
1963; O. Cullmann, The Earliest Christian Confessions, 1949; E. Stauffer, New 
Testament Theology, 1955, 244-48. 

(d) To confess. Referring to the sacrifices under the old covenant, Heb. 10:3 
declares: “But in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sin |anamnesis hamartion| 
year after year.”’ Here the allusion may well be to the Day of Atonement ritual (Lev. 
16), which involved public acknowledgment of sins committed in the past year (cf. J. 
A. Bengel, Gnomon of the New Testament, IV, 1866°, 4219 ff.; F. F. Bruce, op. cit., 
228 f., who draws attention to Num. 5:15, where the ordeal of jealousy involves “a 
meal-offering of memorial, bringing iniquity to remembrance’, and Jub. 34:19, 
where the Day of Atonement is the anniversary of the day on which Joseph was sold 
by his brothers, and “has been ordained that they should grieve for all their sins, and 
for all their errors, so that they might cleanse themselves on that day once a year”). 
As the OT sacrifices cannot remove sin, their effect is to expose it, so that he who 
brings an offering for sin year by year, is thereby confessing that he is, and remains, 
a sinner (cf. K. H. Bartels, Gedachtnis, 26 and notes 209 f.). 

3. The only other NT instances of anamnesis occur in the Pauline and Lucan 
accounts of the Last Supper (— Lord’s Supper): “‘and when he had given thanks, he 
broke it, and said, ‘This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me 
[touto poieite eis ten emen anamnesin].’ In the same way also the cup, after supper, 
saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, 
in remembrance of me [touto poieite, hosakis ean pinete, eis ten emen anamnesin|’ ” 
(1 Cor. 11:24 f.); “And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and 
gave it to them, saying, ‘This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remem- 
brance of me [touto poiete eis ten emen anamnesin|’ ” (Lk. 22:19 RSV mg.; for dis- 
cussion of the textual variants in Lk. see Metzger, 173-77). 

Traditionally, these words have been generally understood to mean that the Lord’s 



Supper was Jesus’ appointed means of being present in the hearts and minds of the 
community of the church. At one end of the scale, there was the Zwinglian inter- 
pretation which saw the Lord’s Supper as a kind of aide memoire, a stimulus to the 
act of mental recollection of Jesus’ atoning death. Whether this does full justice to 
Zwingli himself is open to question (cf. Zwingli On the Lord’s Supper, 1526, in G. 
W. Bromiley, ed., Zwingli and Bulinger, Library of Christian Classics XXIV, 1953, 
176-238). Zwingli believed that the physical body of Christ was risen, ascended, and 
seated at the right hand of the Father, and therefore could not be present in the 
Lord’s Supper. Moreover, he held that it is the Spirit that gives life (Jn. 6:63), and 
therefore the access that we have to Christ in remembering him is through the Spirit. 
At the other end of the scale is the Catholic interpretation which speaks of the real 
presence of Christ in the eucharist, involving the doctrine of transubstantiation in 
which the substance of the bread and the wine is changed into the substance of the 
body and blood of Christ, though the accidents (i.e. the outward appearances) 
remain. It was defined de fide by the Lateran Council of 1215 (cap. 1), received 
classical formulation by Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologiae 3a, QQ. 75—77), and 
reaffirmed by the Council of Trent (Session 13, 1551, cap. 4). This was also closely 
linked with the doctrine of eucharistic sacrifice, in which the eucharist was seen as 
the means of making present to the church the atoning death of Christ. More recent- 
ly Catholic theologians have attempted to restate the doctrine of the eucharist. Thus 
Gregory Dix saw the essence of the early church’s understanding of the eucharist as 
“the recalling before God of the one sacrifice of Christ in all its accomplished and ef- 
fectual fulness so that it is here and now operative by its effects in the souls of the 
redeemed” (The Shape of the Liturgy, 1945, 243). The Protestant writer, Max 
Thurian, who is a member of the Taizé community, takes the words eis ten emen 
anamnesin to mean: “ ‘with a view to my memorial, in memorial of me, as the 
memorial of me.’ This memorial is not a simple subjective act of recollection, it is a 
liturgical action. But it is not just a liturgical action which makes the Lord present, it 
is a liturgical action which recalls as a memorial before the Father the unique 
sacrifice of the Son, and this makes Him present in His memorial, in the presentation 
of His sacrifice before the Father and in His intercession as heavenly High Priest. 
The eucharistic memorial is a recalling to us, a recalling by us to the Father and a 
recalling of the Son to the Father for us. Hence the eucharistic memorial is a 
proclamation by the Church; it is a thanksgiving and intercession of Christ for the 
Church” (The Eucharistic Memorial, II, The New Testament, Ecumenical Studies in 
Worship 8, 1961, 35 f.). 

A somewhat different line of approach, which nevertheless sees these words of 
Jesus as having a God-ward reference, is taken by J. Jeremias in The Eucharistic 
Words of Jesus, 1966, 249-55. Jeremias takes the phrase to mean: “that God may 
remember me.” He claims that in such passages as Mk. 14:9 (par. Matt. 26:13), Acts 
10:4 and in the OT and Palestinian memorial formulae, it is almost always God who 
remembers (op. cit., 251 f.; cf. 246-49). He also cites the Passover Haggadah prayer 
which may in essence go back to the time of Jesus: “Our God and God of our 
fathers, may there arise, and come, and come unto, be seen, accepted, heard, 
recollected and remembered, the remembrance of us and the recollection of us, and 
the remembrance of our fathers, and the remembrance of the Messiah, son of David, 
thy servant (zikrén maSiah ben Dawid ‘abdeka), and the remembrance of Jerusalem 



thy holy city, and the remembrance of all thy people, the house of Israel. May their 
remembrance come before thee, for rescue, goodness ...” (op. cit., 252). In other 
words, Jeremias contends that the command for repetition may be understood as 
“<This do, that God may remember me’; God remembers the Messiah in that he 
causes the kingdom to break in by the parousia”’ (ibid.). Paul’s explanation in v. 26 
(“For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death 
until he comes”’) is taken by Jeremias to mean: “As often as the death of the Lord is 
proclaimed at the Lord’s supper, and the maranatha rises upwards, God is reminded 
of the unfulfilled climax of the work of salvation ‘until (the goal is reached, that) he 
comes’ ”’ (op. cit., 253; + Present, art. maranatha). 

It should be observed that Jeremias is making a point which is rather different 
from the older Catholic interpretations and even that of Thurian. There is nothing in 
his argument which suggests a doctrine of the real presence of Christ or a eucharistic 
sacrifice which either repeats or extends that of Christ on the cross. Its emphasis is 
eschatological. The Lord’s Supper would thus be an enacted prayer comparable with 
Ps. 132(131):1: “Lord, remember David |[mnestheti, kyrie, Dauid].” It might also be 
compared with the vision of the fifth seal in Rev. 6:9 f., where the souls of the mar- 
tyrs under the altar “‘cried out with a loud voice, ‘O Sovereign Lord, holy and true, 
how long before thou wilt judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell upon the 
earth?’ ” Jeremias sees this interpretation as essentially Jewish and Palestinian in out- 
look, making it “very probable that the command goes back to Jesus himself” (op. 
cit., 255). | 

However, Jeremias’s view has not been universally endorsed. Although he can 
point to Did. 10:5 f. for supporting testimony to prayer in the early church for the es- 
chatological remembrance of God and to the OT for the idea of God remembering, 
his view does not rule out other interpretations. touto poieite (“This do”) may be 
regarded as a summary of the procedure to be followed by participants in the Lord’s 
Supper. They are to act as Jesus did, when instituting the Supper on the eve of his 
passion, according to the Synoptic account. All the words and actions are intended 
to be eis ten emen anamnesin. Comparison with the passages discussed in OT 2 (d) 
and with Heb. 10:3 suggests that this command to repeat the words and actions may 
be paraphrased as follows: ‘“‘Do this, by eating the bread and drinking the cup (i.e. by 
participating in my life and death), by the preaching of the word (1 Cor. 11:26) and 
the singing of praise.” The word anamnesis covers all these ideas. For a detailed 
analysis see Bartels, Gedachtnis, 27—42 and notes 212—334, where the most impor- 
tant literature on the subject is also discussed (> further Body; ~ Blood: > 
Fellowship; - Song; cf. Mk. 14:26). | 

In the early church liturgies of the Lord’s Supper, which give a fuller interpretation 
of the words of institution, the anamnesis is expanded into a credal statement which 
is sometimes quite extensive. Evidence of this is found as early as Justin Martyr 
(Dial. 70, 4) and in the so-called Church Order of Hippolytus (cf. Bartels, 
Gedachtnis, 42-49 and notes 336-39). Accordingly in the ancient church it was the 
legal duty of baptized church members to participate in the Lord’s Supper (Apostolic 
Constitutions 8, 47, 9), such participation being forbidden to all who were not full 
members (Apostolic Constitutions 12, 1 f.). 

4. The original meanings of the mimnesko word-group were entirely non-religious, 
ranging from sexual desire to the heights of philosophy. However, as a result of their 



adoption into the Gk. scriptures as renderings of Heb. and ancient eastern 
equivalents, the Gk. words underwent a significant expansion of meaning, par- 
ticularly along the lines of public worship (Schottroff, op. cit., passim). In this matter 
the NT followed implicitly in the footsteps of the OT, largely defying common Gk. 

What makes this so significant is the fact that the Gk. of the NT possesses so 
many other words relating to public worship, and yet this, the mne- group, is in- 
troduced into early Christian vocabulary for use in this special area, with the result 
that what has been an altogether peripheral meaning in profane Gk. now becomes 
central. This is a sure sign that existing NT words were felt to be inadequate. In both 
OT and NT, the public worship of God (including sacrifice) belongs to the sphere of 
the historical. God’s revelation, unlike the nature religions, does not follow the birth- 
and-death cycles of nature; it is no automatically unfolding process as in the mystery 
religions or in gnosticism. Rather, it occurs within the course of history (although not 
confined to history, cf. R. Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, I, 1952, 25 f.) 
stretching from yesterday, through today, and on into the future, from Sinai to 
Calvary, from the OT covenant people to the church of Christ, then on to us and 
eventually to the end of the age and God’s eternal kingdom. Hence, all the church’s 
worship is and always has been historical, verbal and personal, rather than nature- 
orientated, mystical or dramatic. This is true of the preaching of the word, which 
aims to give outward expression to something which has happened in the past, by 
removing it from the wrappings of memory or of oral or written tradition and so 
recalling it to men’s minds. The same applies also to the Lord’s Supper, instituted at 
a precise time and place to be a “remembrance” of Christ throughout a definite 
period in the church’s history, namely, “till he come” (1 Cor. 11:26). The Supper has 
its roots in the historical event of Christ’s passion, so, as in the case of preaching, 
each time it takes place it is “in remembrance of” Jesus Christ. We give outward, 
visual expression to what we inwardly remember in order once again to “feed on him 
in our hearts by faith”. 

God’s “remembrance” of his people (expressed in preaching) dovetails with his 
people’s “remembrance” of him in praise and testimony. Within the context of 
revelation, God’s remembrance is expressed verbally, i.e. it is addressed to men’s 
minds and is personal, but it is not therefore mere words. “God’s remembering is 
thus an efficacious and creative event” (O. Michel, TDNT IV 675). It can bring > 
blessing (Gen. 30:22) or — judgment (Rev. 16:19). Man’s response is similarly 
‘remembrance’, expressed not only verbally in the ordinance of public worship, but 
in a manner which involves the whole person as only eating and drinking can do, 1.e. 
in the Lord’s Supper; and, over and above all this, expressed tangibly in collecting 
money for the poor (Gal. 2:10). Hence, words of the mne- group cover a concept 
which is fundamental to the Bible and which embraces the whole of divine and 
human life: the “Word” of revelation and the “response” of faith. 

5. Finally, the instances in the NT of the following nouns may be noted: mneia, 
remembrance (1 Thess. 3:6; 2 Tim. 1:3), mention, in the NT only in prayer (Rom. 
1:9; Eph. 1:16; 1 Thess. 1:2; Phil. 1:3; Phlm. 4); mnema, lit. a sign of remembrance, 
especially for the dead, and thus a grave or tomb (Mk. 5:3 par. Lk. 8:27; Mk. 15:46 
par. Lk. 23:53; Mk. 16:2 par. Lk. 24:1; Acts 2:29; Rev. 11:9); mnemeéion, lit. a 
token of remembrance, especially for the dead, and hence a monument or memorial 



(probably Lk. 11:47) and a grave or tomb (Matt. 8:28 par. Mk. 5:2; Matt. 23:29 par. 
Lk. 11:47; Matt. 27:52 f., 60 par. Mk. 15:46, Jn. 19:41 f.; Matt. 28:8 par. Mk. 16:8; 
Mk. 6:29; 16:2 f., 5; Lk. 11:44; 23:55; 24:2, 9, 12 v. 1, 22, 24; Jn. 5:28; 11:17, 31, 
38; 12:17; 20:14, 6, 8, 11; Acts 13:29). hypomnesis (2 Tim. 1:5; 2 Pet. 1:13; 3:1) is 
virtually identical in meaning with anamnesis in the act. sense. For further discussion 
— Bury; — Lord’s Supper, > Proclamation; > Resurrection K. H. Bartels 

(a). J. Behm, anamnesis etc., TDNT I 348 f.; E. P. Blair, “An Appeal to Remembrance: The Memory 
Motif in Deuteronomy”, /nterpretation 51, 1961, 41 ff.; B. S. Childs, Memory and Tradition in Israel, 
SBT 37, 1962; G. Dix, The Shape of the Liturgy, 1945; J. Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus, 
19667; D. Gregg, Anamnesis in the Eucharist, 1976; D. Jones, “anamnesis in the Septuagint and the 
Interpretation of 1 Cor. xi. 25”, JTS New Series 6, 1955, 183 ff.; E. Kasemann, ““The Pauline Doctrine 
of the Lord’s Supper’, Essays on New Testament Themes, 1964, 108-35; A. Oepke and R. Meyer, 
krypto etc., TDNT III 957-1000; O. Michel, mimneskomai etc., TDNT IV 675-83; M. Noth, “The 
‘Representation’ of the O.T. in Proclamation’, in C. Westermann, ed., Essays on Old Testament Inter- 
pretation, 1963, 76—88; J. J. Petuchowski, “ ‘Do this in Remembrance of Me’ (1 Cor. 11:24)”, JBL 76, 
1957, 293 ff.; M. Thurian, The Eucharistic Memorial, 1 The Old Testament, 11 The New Testament, 
Ecumenical Studies in Worship 7 and 8, 1961. 

(b). K. H. Bartels, Dies tut zu meinem Geddchtnis. Zur Auslegung von I Kor. 11, 24, 25 (Disserta- 
tion, Mainz, with extensive bibliography), 1959; and “Der theoretische Quellort der ‘Sammlung’ und 
ihre Parole ‘Katholische Reformation’ ”, EvTh 20, 1960, 364 ff.; J. Begrich, “séper und mazkir” ZAW 
Neue Folge 17, 1940-41, 1 ff.; P. A. H. de Boer, Gedenken und Geddchtnis in der Welt des Alten 
Testaments, 1962; P. Bonnard, “Die Anamnesis, eine grundlegende Struktur des Urchristentums”’, in 
Zeichen der Zeit, 1971, 81-88; P. Brunner, “Zur Lehre vom Gottesdienst”, Leiturgia 1, 1954, 84 ff.; 
N. A. Dahl, ‘““Anamnesis: Mémoire et Commemoration du Christianisme primitif’, StT7h 1, 1947, 
69-95; O. Haggenmiiller, “Erinnern und Vergessen Gottes und der Menschen”, Bibel und Leben 3, 
1962, 1 ff.; J. Jeremias, “Mk. 14, 9”, ZNW 44, 1952-53, 103 ff.; P. Neuenzeit, Das Herrenmahl. Stu- 
dien zur paulinischen Eucharistieauffassung, 1960; H. Graf Reventlow, “Das Amt des mazkir’, ThZ 
Basel 15, 1959, 161 ff.; G. Schmidt, “MNESTHETI’, in Viva Vox Evangelii, Festschrift W. Meiser, 
1951, 259 ff.; W. Schottroff, “Gedenken” im Alten Orient und im Alten Testament, Wissenschaftliche 
Monographien 15, 1964; and zakar, THAT 1 507-18. 

Remnant, Leave 

[ela Aginw (/eipo), leave, leave behind, lack; Aoiz0c¢ (Joipos), 
remaining, other; Asiuua (leimma), remnant; Katadeinw 

(kataleipo), leave, leave behind, leave over; KkatdAsyua (kataleimma), remnant; 

UToAEyuA (hypoleimma), remnant. 

CL The basic Gk. vb. /eipo (found as early as Mycenaean Gk., related to Lat. 

linquere, Eng. leave) means to leave, leave behind, leave over. As an intrans. ac- 
tive, it can assume the meaning of to be lacking (e.g. soi polla leipei, you lack much). 
There are various compound derivatives: kataleipo, to leave behind, leave remaining: 
hypoleipo, to leave remaining; perileipomai, to survive (all these are found in Homer, 
e.g. I]. 10, 238; Od. 16, 50; Zl. 19, 230); and dialeipo, to cease (Xenophon, Apology 
16). Later derivatives are the adjectives /oipos, remaining (Pindar); and kataloipos, 
left over (Plato). The rare noun Jeimma, remnant, residue, occurs from Hdt. 
onwards; the LXX has also kataleimma, with the same meaning. Neither the vbs. 
nor the nouns acquired in Gk. any special nuance or religious meaning, apart from 
the general meaning of to leave, leave remaining, remnant, residue (of persons and 



things). This is true even in the writings of Josephus who, instead of the nouns, 
generally used fo leipsanon, the remainder (cf. Eur. Medea 1387; Josephus, Ant. 11, 
213; War 4, 414). 

oT 1. In the LXX /Jeipo and its derivatives are used in most cases for the following — 

Heb. verbs and their derivatives: (a) Sa’ar (niphal, to be left remaining; hiphil, to 
leave remaining; some 200 times in the MT); (b) ‘azab, to forsake (niphal, to be for- 
saken; some 200 times); palat, to escape (22 times in piel meaning to save); 
(e) sarad, to run away (once only, Jos. 10:20; the derivative sarid, survivor, occurs 
however 28 times). | 

The noun /eimma is found only once (2 Ki. 19:4, for 5°erit, remnant); the vb. leipo 
in all 8 times (3 times for 3 different Heb. verbs, 4 times in the Apocrypha, and at 
Prov. 11:3 giving a different sense from that of the MT); but the adj. /Joipos more 
than 120 times (mostly for yeter, remnant, and 10 times for Sar or S°erit, remnant). 
Most frequent of all, however, with nearly 300 instances, is kataleipo, chiefly for 
Sa’ar, to be left remaining, to leave remaining; ‘azab, to forsake; and yatar, to be left 
remaining, to leave remaining. The adj. kataloipos (over 90 times) is used in most 
cases for S’ar or yeter, remnant; the noun kataleimma (21 times) usually for 5 ar or 
¥ erit, remnant, but also twice for sarid, escapee. hypoleipo (c. 90 times) is likewise 
used for Sa’ar, yatar and other Heb. vbs. Less frequent is the noun hypoleimma, rem- 
nant, which occurs 9 times in all, rendering in 6 instances derivatives of Sa’ar and 
once sarid, survivor. perileipo and periloipos translate derivates of Sa’ar and yatar. 
Differences of meaning between the various compounds of Jeipo used to translate 
Heb. words are especially marked in the case of dialeipo, to cease (10 times for 
various Heb. vbs.), and ekleipo, to cease, come to an end (over 150 instances), 
neither of which are ever used for Sa’ar or yatar. 

2. In the general sense most of these vbs. are used of things to describe total 
destruction with nothing remaining (e.g. Exod. 10:15, where the locusts leave nothing 
remaining; Exod. 10:19, the locusts are not left remaining, i.e. they are totally 
removed), or to refer to a remnant which survives (e.g. Isa. 10:19, where the remnant 
of the forest trees can be counted by a child; Isa. 44:17, 19, where the rest of a tree is 
fashioned into an idol). 

(a) Important uses of the words are the concepts of the remnant in the case of the 
noun, and to leave remaining in the case of the vb., in the context of the holy > war. 
Here it is a matter of the total annihilation of peoples or specific groups (Og of 
Bashan, Num. 21:35; the inhabitants of Ai, Jos. 8:12 ff., or the leaving of survivors 
after a campaign, a few Anakim in Gaza, Gath and Ashdod, Jos. 11:12). 

The terms “remnant” and “survive” can be used to describe the activity of 
Yahweh in preserving what he has created. Thus in the flood story (10th century 
B.C.) we find the words: “Only Noah was left [MT wayyiSSa’er; LXX kai 
kateleiphthe|, and those that were with him in the ark” (Gen. 7:23; — Noah). 

(b) The military use of the word Sa’ar is combined with the preserving activity of 
Yahweh towards the end of the 9th century B.C., in the promise of Yahweh to > Eli- 
jah (1 Ki. 19:18) at a time when Israel was threatened from within by apostasy and 
outwardly by the Syrian Hazael: “Yet I will leave [MT wiS’arti, LXX kai 
kataleipseis| seven thousand in Israel, all the knees that have not bowed to Baal, and 
every mouth that has not kissed him.” 



3. (a) The first suggestions of the idea of a remnant of Israel are found in the 
early prophets. Thus in Amos 5:14 f. we can see the “vague hope of a yet 
unspecified” (S. Herrmann, Die prophetischen Heilserwartungen im Alten 
Testament, 1965, 124 f.), when the prophet says that “it may be” (!) that Yahweh 
will be gracious to “the remnant of Joseph”. In Isaiah the military concept of a rem- 
nant is given a theological content. In the context of the prophet’s exhortation to 
King Ahaz not to be afraid (cf. Isa. 30:15) and to trust in Yahweh, we find the name 
of the prophet’s son Shear-jashub (5° ar yasub, ““A remnant shall return” (Isa. 7:3). 
The object of the prophet’s exhortation is to save the people from a catastrophe in 
which, while the people of God will not be totally destroyed, only a remnant will sur- 
vive. Here the concept of the remnant serves to underline and confirm the dread- 
fulness of the catastrophe. Those who cannot muster up confidence in Yahweh 
become a worthless residue (cf. Isa. 30:15 ff.). Herrmann holds that “the concept of 
the remnant is peripheral to Isaiah’s message” (op. cit., 130), but in Isaiah a 
“forerunner of the doctrine of the remnant” can be seen (U. Stegemann, “Der 
Restgedanke bei Jesaja”, BZ Neue Folge 19, 1969, 186). Some scholars hold that 
the mention of a remnant in Isaiah led in the later, post-exilic period to the addition 
of various sayings (Isa. 6:13; 10:20 ff.; 11:11 ff.; 28:5 f.), which seek to tone down 
the prophet’s message of — judgment by the thought of the remnant, and to place 
more emphasis on the remnant in the prophet’s message generally. 

(b) Even in the first half of the 6th century B.C., the time of the catastrophic 
downfall of the Southern Kingdom in 597 and 587 B.C., there is no mention of a 
remnant of Israel which could maintain the hope of a new beginning. Jeremiah 
threatens that Yahweh will let Judah be annihilated (Jer. 19:11). He compares those 
who have been left in the land under Zedekiah (hanni§’arim ba’ares) to bad figs 
(24:8; — Fruit, art. syke). The remnant of Judah under Gedaliah forfeits the 
possibility of remaining in the land, when Gedaliah is murdered by Ishmael (Jer. 

In Ezekiel, the concept of the remnant is either excluded (Ezek. 9:8; 11:13; 17:21), 
or used in an entirely different way. There is a remnant remaining in > Jerusalem 
after the judgments of Yahweh (war, famine, wild beasts, pestilence); but the only 
purpose is to bring home to the exiles a proof of the massive destruction of Jerusalem 
and its inhabitants (cf. W. Eichrodt, Ezekiel: A Commentary, 1970, 190 f. on Ezek. 
14:22; cf. 12:16, where the survivors are to “confess all their abominations among 
the nations where they go”, i.e. the self-condemnation of Israel). 

For Jeremiah and Ezekiel alike, the true remnant is represented by the company of 
exiles, i.e. by those who have survived the catastrophe through deportation. They are 
the ones, according to Ezekiel, to whom God appears. . 

(c) A somewhat more optimistic attitude to the remnant is seen in Deuteronomy. 
Although at Deut. 28:62, like Lev. 26:36, the survivors are warned of calamity and 
fear in the land of their enemies, Deut. 4:27 ff. reminds those who remain of the 
mercy of Yahweh, should they repent. They are promised consolation in an un- 
usually emphatic way. 

(d) It was during the period of the exile that the concept of the remnant acquired a 
fixed theological content, viz. the hope of Yahweh’s preserving and saving work. 
Behind this was the discovery that, although in the national catastrophe Yahweh had 
executed a terrible judgment, even this judgment was limited by Yahweh’s will to 



maintain and preserve his people. We have a witness to this hope in Isa. 46:3 f. when 
the prophet makes Yahweh address the exiles as “the remnant of the house of 
Israel”, whom he will “bear, carry and save” (Isa. 46:4). In these chapters we also 
find another, different thought: the concept of a remnant is applied to the “survivors 
of the nations” (Isa. 45:20) who, embarrassed as a result of their idolatry, take coun- 
sel before Yahweh. 

(e) In the late exilic and post-exilic periods, i.e. in the second half of the 6th cen- 
tury B.C., when the > temple was rebuilt by the returned exiles, the concept of the 
remnant gained increasingly in importance. To this period belong probably the say- 
ings of Mic. 2:12 f.; 5:7 f.; 7:18, and Zeph. 2:7, 9, where the recovery of the coastal 
strip is promised to the remnant of Judah (v. 7), or of the people generally (v. 9). In 
Obadiah (v. 17) we find, already during the exilic period, the concept of the remnant 
linked with the hope for — Jerusalem or Zion; and Zechariah announces the return of 
Yahweh to Zion, and awakes in the survivors the hope of the preservation of 
Jerusalem (8:3; 8:11 f., “a sowing of peace”, i.e. secure tenure). 

(f) In Joel 2:32 the concept of the remnant is still linked to Zion (cf. also Ezr. 9:8) 
at a still later date (4th or 3rd century B.C.). In the books of Ezra and Nehemiah (4th 
or 3rd century B.C.) the idea of the remnant is several times applied to the exiles who 
have returned (Ezr. 9:8; 9:15; Neh. 1:2 f.). After 300 B.C. the later parts of the book 
of Zechariah speak of a remnant which will be purified (Zech. 13:8 f.), and which will 
Survive on the day when the nations assemble to fight against Jerusalem (14:2, linked 
with apocalyptic ideas about the day of Yahweh). 

(g) A completely new kind of saying is found concerning the Philistines at Zech. 
9:7: “it too shall be a remnant for our God; it shall be like a clan in Judah.” Isa. 
66:18 ff. (which could be as late as 160 B.C., cf. C. Westermann, /saiah 40-66: A 
Commentary, 1969, 295-308, 423 f.) speaks of a mission of survivors to the nations 
— in the context of apocalyptic sayings, a line of thought which extends the idea of 
the remnant to the nations, and has its ultimate continuation in the NT! 

4. (a) In the extra-canonical, apocalyptic writings, the remnant concept is only 
occasionally applied to the whole creation: ‘““And now, my son, arise and make a 
petition to the Lord of glory, since thou art a believer, that a remnant may remain on 
the earth, and that He may not destroy the whole world” (Eth. Enoch 83:8). 2 Esd. 
13:26 speaks of “a Man coming from the heart cf the sea” through whom “the Most 
High” will deliver his creation “and the same shall order the survivors”. Much more 
frequent are the remnant sayings which refer to — Israel or the synagogue: 2 Esd. 
9:7 f. refers to “‘my salvation in my land, and within my borders” in connexion with 
those who have been saved (cf. 2 Esd. 12:34; 13:48; Eth. Enoch 90:30). According 
to Syr. Bar. 40:2, the messiah will “protect the rest of My people which shall be . 
found in the place which I have chosen.” 

(b) The tying of the remnant concept to Israel led, in Palestinian Judaism, to the 
making of exclusive claims for particular groups, and consequently to an intensifica- 
tion. The Qumran community, for instance, saw in itself the holy remnant promised 
in the OT (CD 1:4), and enjoying God’s assistance (1QM 13:8; 14:8 f.), while their 
enemies are utterly destroyed with none remaining (1QM 1:6; 4:2; 14:5; cf. also 1QS 
4:1-5:13; CD 2:6). Likewise, the > Pharisees attempted, by voluntary submission 
to priestly ordinances regarding cleansing, to set themselves up as the holy remnant 



(cf. J. Jeremias, “Der Gedanke des ‘Heiligen Restes’ im Spatjudentum und in der 
Verkundigung Jesu”, in Abba, 1966, 122). 

(c) In rabbinic Judaism the condition for belonging to the remnant was held to be 
observance of the Torah. “So... shall great deeds be done... (but only) for the rem- 
nant, who have not sinned” (Targum Isa. 10:22 f.). “Those who survive will return to 
Zion, and those who have kept the Torah will remain in Jerusalem” (Targum Isa. 
4:3). Here the concept of the remnant is quite clearly associated with the keeping of 
the — law. 

NT 1. In the NT the noun /eimma, remnant, is found only once (Rom. 11:5), and the 

vb. leipo 6 times, with the meaning to lack, be in want of (Lk. 18:22: Tit. 1:5: 
3:13; Jas. 1:4 f.; 2:15). The adj. loipos, remaining, other, which is used chiefly in the 
plur., the others, the rest, or adverbially, in other respects, is found altogether 55 
times; occasionally with a critical undertone, when it refers to those who are har- 
dened (Lk. 8:10; Rom. 11:7), who do not believe (Mk. 16:13; 1 Thess. 4:13), who 
act as hypocrites (Gal. 2:13), or who do not repent (Rev. 9:20). 

As in the LXX, the most common compound is kataleipo, again with various 
meanings such as to leave (a region, Matt. 4:13; people, Matt. 19:5 par., Mk. 10:7: 
cf. Gen. 2:24; possessions, Lk. 5:28); to fall behind, neglect (Acts 6:2): to leave, 
leave behind (someone somewhere, e.g. Acts 18:19). The following appear once 
each: kataloipoi, rest (Acts 15:17 = Amos 9:12 LXX); dialeipo, to leave off, cease 
(Lk. 7:45); hypoleipomai, to be left remaining; and hypoleimma, remnant (Rom. 9:27 
= citation of Isa. 10:22; in the TR kataleimma). 

2. (a) In the NT, the OT remnant concept is taken up only in Rom. 9—11. Here 
Paul is dealing with the fact that the majority of Jews refuse to believe in Christ. In- 
deed, the central theme of Rom. is the question of the standing of the Jewish people 
in relation to the salvation that is in Christ alone. Chs. 1—8 deal with the ground of 
salvation showing that the OT anticipates the way of salvation in Christ. Chs. 9-11 
deal with the position of the Jews as the chosen people in the light of their rejection of 
Christ and God’s overall purposes. What attitude, then, should be adopted towards 
this fact by the early Christian church, composed as it is of both Gentile and Jewish 
Christians? Does this rejection of Christ mean that the > election of Israel no longer 
applies? Paul holds on to the special position of Israel among the nations. This 
special position, however, is based on God’s free elective grace, kat’ eklogen, “ac- 
cording to election” (Rom. 9:11; 11:5), just as is the calling of the Gentiles into the 
community of the new people of God (9:24). 

To show that the Gentiles are accepted as children of God, Paul cites Hos. 2:23 
and 1:10 (Rom. 9:25 f.). This is followed immediately (9:27) by the warning of Isa. 
10:22 f., which speaks of the decimation of Israel down to a remnant that repents: 
like the LX X, Paul does not say “A remnant will return”, but “A remnant will be 
saved.” To this he adds in v. 29 a citation of Isa. 1:9, where the LX X has already in- 
troduced a greater note of hope: for the Heb. sarid, remnant, both LXX and Paul 
have sperma, lit. “seed’’, i.e. descendants. This combination of OT citations displays 
clearly the direction of Paul’s reinterpretation of the remnant. In setting a reference 
to the remnant of Israel alongside the prophecy of the Gentiles’ acceptance as the 
children of God, Paul is altering the status of the former. The remnant of OT 
prophecy merges into the new people of God, constituted on the basis of faith in 



Christ. The remnant of Israel is not eliminated; but it stands alongside those Gentiles 
who are called to be members of God’s new people. The remnant (Isa. 1:9 MT), or 
the descendants (Isa. 1:9 LX X), are those whom God has called, together with the 
Gentiles, into the church of Christ. In Rom. 11:3, 4, 5, the concept of the remnant is 
introduced by a reference back to Elijah’s complaint on Mount Horeb (1 Ki. 19:10), 
and Yahweh’s reply (1Ki. 19:18). This reference is used by Paul as evidence that 
God has not rejected Israel. The leimma kat’ eklogen charitos, remnant chosen by 
grace (— Election, art. haireomai; > Grace, art. charis), is however based not on 
Israel’s efforts, but on God’s set purpose (Rom. 11:5); and it is characterized by faith 
in Christ. Paul’s hope is that through this remnant, and through the Gentile Chris- 
tians who with them form the church, the “fullness” (pleroma, Rom. 11:12 AV) of 
Israel can be won for Christ. Thus in the remnant of Israel, which confesses faith in 
Christ, there is a new beginning for all Israel. This remnant is a enallenge to all the 

God’s gracious activity is directed towards all nations and towards the whole of 
Israel, with the aim of making them part of the new people of God. Paul takes up the 
concept of the remnant and weaves it into an elaborate argument in these chapters, 
where he appears as the spokesman of Israel. His purpose is not to take over into the 
Christian church the ideas about the remnant which were current in Ist century 
Judaism, and to suggest that the church is the holy remnant. Nor is he attacking the 
idea of the remnant. He is reinterpreting and developing it further, to show that the 
OT prophecy of the remnant is fulfilled in a community consisting of Jews and Gen- 

(b) The adj. Joipos, remaining, is twice used by Paul of those who mourn because 
they have no hope (1 Thess. 4:13), or who are asleep in the sense that they are not 
expecting the parousia (1 Thess. 5:6) (> Present, art. parousia). In Rom. 1:13 it 1s 
used of other nations, or Gentiles, in contrast to those being addressed in the letter, 
and in Gal. 2:13 it refers to other Jewish Christians who joined Peter in acting 
hypocritically, in that at first they had fellowship at table with the Gentiles in An- 
tioch, but later abandoned it out of fear. 

Otherwise Paul uses the adj. without any specialized meaning, and in this he is not 
unlike other NT writers: other (the rest of the Gentiles, Rom. 1:13; the rest of the 
Jews, Gal. 2:13; and the rest of the churches, 2 Cor. 12:13; the other co-workers, 
Phil. 4:3; the other apostles, 1 Cor. 9:5, cf. Acts 2:37; cf. the other virgins, Matt. 
25:11; the rest of the scriptures, 2 Pet. 3:16); the others (Rom. 11:7; 1 Cor. 7:12; 
Eph. 2:3; 1 Tim. 5:20; cf. Matt. 22:6, 27; Mk. 16:13; Lk. 8:10; 18:9, 11; 24:10; 
Acts 5:13; 16:30 D; 17:9; 27:44; Rev. 19:21; 20:5); all the others (2 Cor. 13:2; Phil. 
1:13; cf. Lk. 24:9; Acts 28:9); the other things, the rest (1 Cor. 11:34; 15:37; cf. Mk. 
4:19; Lk. 12:26; Rev. 3:2). 

loipos is used adverbially in various expressions of time: (to) loipon, from now on, 
in the future, henceforth (1 Cor. 7:29; 2 Tim. 4:8: cf. Matt. 26:45; Mk. 14:41; Heb. 
10:13); loipon, finally (Acts 27:20); tou loipou, from now on, in the future (Gal. 
6:17), finally (Eph. 6:10). (to) loipon is also used adverbially in the sense of beyond 
that, as far as the rest is concerned, finally (1 Cor. 1:16; 2 Cor. 13:11; Phil. 3:1; 4:8; 
1 Thess. 4:1; 2 Thess. 3:1); and in this connexion, then, furthermore (1 Cor. 4:2). 

3. In the Synoptic Gospels the adj. is also occasionally used to describe those 
who are outside the rule of God. Thus in the parable of the royal wedding feast 



(Matt. 22:1—13), hoi loipoi, the others, the rest, are those who mock and kill the ser- 
vants sent by the king to invite them; and in Matt. 25:1-12 the “other |J/oipai| 
maidens ” (v. 11) are those excluded from the wedding feast. Jesus’ cry of dereliction 
from the cross (Matt. 27:46) is finally received by “the others [hoi loipoi|” with the 
words: “‘Wait, let us see whether Elijah will come and save him” (Matt. 27:49). In 
Lk. 8:10 the “others” are contrasted with the disciples. /Joipoi here means those who 
are outside the band of disciples and do not understand the meaning of the > 
parables, because they are > hardened (cf. also Rom. 11:7). The parable of the 
Pharisee and the publican (Lk. 18:9—14) is addressed to those who, in their own 
faithful observance of the law, despise others (/oipous, v. 9). The expression “other 
men’’, used by the Pharisee, is here a judgment on those who do not keep the law (v. 
11). Whether the polemic of the gospels against the — Pharisees (cf. Matt. 23, es- 
pecially v. 13) is connected with their claim to be the remnant community (cf. J. 
Jeremias, op. cit., 129 f.), and whether the absence of reference to the remnant in the 
Gospels may be traced to this, is a question which cannot be answered with certainty. 
All that can be said is that neither the OT concept of the remnant, nor its narrower 
Judaistic counterpart, is to be found in the Gospels. 

4. The vb. leipo is used in Lk. 18:22 of the decisive shortcoming which hinders the 
rich man from the life of discipleship, namely his riches: “One thing you lack |eti 
hen soi leipei|, sell all that you have and distribute to the poor, and you will have 
treasure in heaven; and come, follow me” (— Poor; —> Possessions). In Jas. 1:4, 5 and 
2:15 the vb. means to lack, have need of, in the literal sense. In Tit. 3:13 it has the 
sense of lack, and in Tit. 1:5 it is used of the defects which Titus is to amend in the 
church in Crete. 

5. In the Revelation the adj. loipos is found 8 times; in two cases it has a meaning 
reminiscent of the remnant idea. In Rev. 11:13 we read of the “rest” who survive the 
judgment on the city unharmed, and give glory to God. Rev. 12:17 speaks of the war 
waged by the dragon on the “rest” of the offspring of the woman, “who keep the 
commandments of God and bear testimony to Jesus’, and against whom in Rev. 13 
both the beasts fight. Although we may see behind these sayings a wealth of Jewish 
apocalyptic material, the reference here is not to the remnant in the sense of a new 

6. The place in early Christian theology for the concept of the remnant in its 
proper sense is in dealing with the relationship of the church to Israel. The return to 
an understanding of it in the sense of a kind of ecclesiola in ecclesia, a church within 
the church, is a repetition of the narrowing of the doctrine which took place in Jewish 
apocalyptic. It ignores two facts: firstly, that we are told that God’s purpose for the 
remnant is his purpose for the whole people; and secondly, that in the confrontation 
between Israel and the message of Jesus Christ, the idea of a specially qualified rem- 
nant became modified and reinterpreted, finding in this message its ultimate fulfil- 
ment in an unexpected way (— Redemption, art. sozo NT; — Elect, art. eklegomai; —> 
Take, art. lambano nT). W. Gunther, H. Krienke 
— Church, —- Israel 

(a). J. G. Baldwin, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, TC, 1972; K. Barth, CD II, 2, 269-305; H. Berkhof, 
Christ the Meaning of History, 1966; J. C. Campbell, ““God’s People and the Remnant”, SJT 3, 1950, 
78-85; W. D. Davies, The Gospel and the Land: Early Christianity and Jewish Territorial Doctrine, 
1974; W. Eichrodt, Ezekiel, 1970; G. Fohrer, “The Stems pit and mit in the Old Testament”, in sozo 



etc., TDNT VI 978 ff.; L. Goppelt, Jesus, Paul and Judaism, 1964; H. Gross, “Remnant”, EBT II 741 
ff.; G. F. Hasel, “Linguistic Considerations Regarding the Translation of Isaiah’s Shear-Jashub: A 
Reassessment”, Andrews University Seminary Studies 9, 1971, 36-46; “Semantic Values of 
Derivatives of the Hebrew root s’r”, ibid. 11, 1973, 152-69; The Remnant: The History and Theology 
of the Remnant Idea from Cae to Isaiah, 19747; and “Remnant”, IDB Supplementary Volume, 
1976, 735 f.; E. W. Heaton, “The Root 5’r and the Doctrine of the Remnant’, /7S New Series 3, 1952, 
27-39; J. Jocz, A Theology of Election: Israel and the Church, 1958; R. Martin-Achard, A Light to the 
Nations, 1962; B. F. Meyer, “Jesus and the Remnant of Israel”, JBL 84, 1965, 123-30; J. 
Morgenstern, “‘The Rest of Nations”, JSS 2, 1957, 225-31; J. Munck, Christ and Israel, 1967; J. 
Murray, The Epistle to.the Romans, NLC, II, 1965, 39 ff., 68 ff.; G. von Rad, Old Testament Theology, 
IT, 1965, 21 f., 165 ff., 187;.P. Richardson, [srael and the Apostolic Church, Society for New Testament 
Studies Monograph Series 10, 1969; V. Herntrich and G. Schrenk, /eimma etc. TDNT IV 194-214; C. 
Westermann, Jsaiah 40-66, 1969; R. N. Whybray, /saiah 40-66, New Century Bible, 1975; E. J. 
Young, The Book of Isaiah, The New International Commentary on The Old Testament, I-III, 
1965-72; W. Zimmerli, Ezekiel, 1, Hermeneia, 1978. 

(b). F. Dreyfus, “‘La Doctrine du Reste d’Israel chez le Prophete Isaie”, Revue des Sciences Philosophi- 
ques et Théologiques 39, 1955, 361-86; S. Herrmann, Die prophetischen Heilserwartungen im Alten 
Testament, 1965; J. Jeremias, “Der Gedanke des ‘Heiligen Restes’ im Spétjudentum und in der 
Verkundigung Jesu”, ZNW 42, 1949, 184 ff. (reprinted in Abba, 1966, 121—32); U. Luz, Das Ge- 
schichtsverstandnis des Paulus, 1968, 80-83; P. Meinhold, Studien zur _ israelitischen 
Religionsgeschichte, 1, Der heilige Rest, 1903; C. Miller, Gottes Gerechtigkeit und Gottes Volk. Eine 
Untersuchung zu Rom. 9-11, FRLANT 86, 1964; W. E. Miiller and W. E. Preuss, Die Vorstellung vom 
Rest im Alten Testament, 1973; G. Schrenk, Die Weissagung tuber Israel im Neuen Testament, 1951; 
U. Stegemann, “Der Restgedanke bei Jesaja”, BZ Neue Folge 19, 1969, 161-86; R. de Vaux, “Le 
‘Reste d’Israel’ d’apres les Prophetes”, RB 42, 1933, 526-39; H. Wildberger, §°ar, THAT II 844-55. 

ae dvanavw (anapauo), give rest, mid. rest, take one’s rest; 
GVATAVGIC a 3 : ; 
dvdravoic (anapausis), rest; éxavanavouat (epana- 
pauomai), rest, take one’s rest, rely on; Katanavw (katapauo), bring to rest, rest, 
stop, resting; Katazavoic (katapausis), rest, place of rest. 

cL In cl. Gk. anapauo is used in its act. form for: (a) make to cease, bring to an end, 

stop or hinder from something (Homer, J/. 17, 550); (b) to rest (trans.), make to 
halt, refresh (Xenophon, Cyropaedia 7, 1, 4). In mid. and pass. it means to cease, 
take rest from, recover, come to rest (Plato, Critias 106a); later also, to die. Thus the 
expression to take one’s rest can be used of the dead (cf. JG 14, 1717). katapauo 
means to stop, put an end to; with reference to persons, to put an end to, hinder, 
depose, kill (Homer, J//. 16, 618; thus often with an unpleasant undertone); but also, 
to appease, calm (Homer, Od. 4, 583). In Judaism the term was taken up in the sense 
of to give someone a good rest (LX X). anapausis in cl. Gk. meant repose, relaxation, 
recreation, a rest from something. 

oT 1. Heb. equivalents. The vb. anapauo is used in the LXX to translate no less than 

14 different Heb. vbs. The most common of these is niiah, rest, repose, be quiet, 
and in the trans. forms to lay down, let remain, leave. niiah occurs in the following 
passages: Exod. 23:12; Deut. 5:14; 2 Sam. 7:11; 1 Ki. 5:18 (4); 13:20 A; 1 Chr. 
22:9, 18; Neh. 9:28; Est. 9:16 ff., 22; Job 3:13, 17, 26; Prov. 21:16; 29:17; Eccl. 7:9 
(10); Hab. 3:16; Zech. 6:8; Isa. 7:19; 11:2; 14:1, 3, 6; 32:18; Lam. 5:5; Dan. 12:13. 
anapauo stands for balag, look cheerful (Job 10:20); yaSab, sit, remain, dwell (Mic. 



4:4); naham, comfort, console (Jer. 42|49]|:10); napas, be refreshed (Exod. 23:12); 
rabas, lie down (Gen. 29:2; 49:14; Isa. 13:20 f.; 14:30; 27:10; Ezek. 34:14 f.); raga‘, 
be at rest, repose (Deut. 28:65; Isa. 34:14; Jer. 47[29]:6); rawah, be wide, spacious, 
find relief (Job 32:20); Sa’an, be at ease, at peace, rest securely (Jer. 48[31]:11); 
Sabat, cease, desist, rest (Exod. 32:12; Isa. 14:4); Sakab, lie down (Num. 24:9);. 
Sakan, settle down, abide, dwell (Isa. 13:21; 32:16; 34:17; 57:15; Ezek. 17:23; 
31:13); Sagat, be quiet (Isa. 57:20; Jer. 49:23 [30:12]; Ezek. 16:42); and ‘abar, pass 
over (Job 13:13?). It is without Heb. equivalent in Jdg. 4:11; 1 Sam. 16:16; Job 2:9; 
Sir. 3:6; 18:16; 22:11; 31 (34):21; 39:11; 47:23; Lam. 1:6; Ad.Dan. Susannah 37. 

The noun anapauma which does not occur in the NT is without equivalent in Job 
3:23, and stands for niah in Isa. 28:2 and m‘nithdh, rest, in Isa. 28:12, though it can 
also mean a resting-place. 

anapausis stands chiefly for m*niihah (Gen. 49:15; Num. 10:33: Ruth 1:9: 1 Chr. 
22:9; 28:2; Pss. 23[22]:1; 132[131]:8; Mic. 2:10; Isa. 11:10; Jer. 45:3|51:33]), and 
other cognates of ntiah, i.e. mandah, resting-place, state or condition of rest (Gen. 
8:9; Ruth 3:1; Ps. 116[115]:7; Isa. 34:14; Lam. 1:3), and nahat, quietness, rest 
(Eccl. 4:6; 9:5, 17), and the vb. niiah (Isa. 23:12). It stands for rabas, repose (Isa. 
17:2), rebes, resting-place (Isa. 65:10); rega‘, a moment (Job 7:18; 21:13); Sabbat, > 
sabbath rest (Exod. 16:23; Lev. 25:8), Sebet, cessation (Isa. 37:28), Sabbat6n, sab- 
bath observance (Exod. 31:15; 32:2; Lev. 16:31?; 23:3, 24, 39; 25:4 f.); and Sabat, 
cease, desist, rest (Exod. 23:12); Sagat, be quiet (Isa. 32:17); and niiah (Isa. 25:10; 
28:2). It is without Heb. equivalent in Est. 9:17; Job 3:23; Ps. 132(131):4; Wis. 4:7; 
Sir. 6:28; 11:19; 20:21; 22:13; 24:7; 28:16; 30:17; 33:25 (30:34); 31(34):3 f.; 
36:24(29); 38:14, 23; 40:5 f.; 51:27; Isa. 23:13 v0 

The vb. epanapauomai, rest in or upon, stands for niiah (Num. 11:25 f.: Jdg. 
16:26; 2 Ki. 2:15; Isa. 11:2 v.l., for §a‘an, lean, support oneself on (2 Ki. 5:18; 7:2, 
17; Mic. 3:11; Ezek. 29:7), and is without equivalent (1 Macc. 8:12). 

In the LX X katapauomai translates no less than 16 different Heb. vbs. or nouns, 
but again the most common is ntiah (Exod. 20:11; 33:14; Deut. 3:20: 12:10; 25:19: 
Jos. 1:13, 15; 3:13; 21:42; 22:4; 23:1; 2 Sam. 21:10; 1 Chr. 23:23; 2 Chr. 14:5 f. 
[6 f.]; 15:15; 20:30; Eccl. 10:4). Sabat is also not uncommon (Gen. 2:2 f.; 8:22; 
Exod. 5:5; 31:17; 34:21; Deut. 32:26; Neh. 4:5]11]: 6:3; Hos. 1:4: Lam. 5:14: 
Ezek. 30:13; Dan. 9:27 Theodotion; 11:18). Other vbs. used are ‘asap, gather (Ps. 
85[84]:3, here in the sense of withdraw [anger]); haydh, live (Deut. 5:33); yaSab 
(Ruth 2:7); kalah, come to an end, cease (Gen. 49